Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Shashi Saini vs Rajendra Prasad Saini @ Raju on 19 April, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5107 / 2016
Rajendra Prasad Saini @ Raju Son of Nandlal Saini Bye Caste Mali,
Aged About 42 Years, R/o Naya Bass Ka Choraha, Kala Kuwan
Housing Board Devraj Hero Honda Reparing Alwar (rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
Shashi Saini Wife of Rajendra Prasad Saini D/o Shri Phool Chand
Saini Bye Caste Mali,, Aged About 29 Years, R/oo Sahab Johda,
Near Shyam Mandir, Alwar (rajasthan)
----Respondent
Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision No. 540 / 2016 Smt Shashi Saini
----Petitioner Versus Rajendra Prasad Saini @ Raju
----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mithun Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh, P.P. Mr. Mamraj Gurjar for complainant _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI Order 19/04/2017 These two criminal misc. petitions are being decided by the common order as both the criminal misc. petitions have been preferred in respect of common order dated 16 th March, 2016 passed by learned Family Judge, Alwar. Deciding the application filed by wife/respondent Smt. Shashi Saini under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance allowance.
(2 of 3) [ CRLMP-5107/2016] In one of petitions preferred by husband/petitioner Rajendra Prasad Saini, he has alleged that the interim maintenance allowance has been wrongly granted in favour of wife/respondent who is living in adultery since 4 th May, 2015. He has referred to provisions contained in Sub-section 4 of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and has averred that miscarriage of justice will be caused if the interim maintenance allowance is granted in favour of the wife/respondent.
Second petition has been preferred by wife Smt. Shashi Saini stating therein that a meagre amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month has been allowed as interim maintenance allowance, hence, the amount is required to be enhanced.
Learned counsel for the wife/petitioner has stated that the husband/respondent is having workshop and having other financial resources, thus his total monthly income is Rs. 55,000/-. Hence, the amount of interim maintenance allowance may kindly be enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- per month.
I have given thoughtful consideration to rival arguments raised by both the sides and perused the order dated 16 th March, 2016. So far as the question of wife living in adultery is concerned, simply making an allegation is not sufficient in this regard. The same is required to be adequately proved by adducing cogent evidence during enquiry of the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Both the parties will have opportunity to adduce their evidence in this regard and then only the allegation will be decided by the learned Court concerned. At this juncture, it (3 of 3) [ CRLMP-5107/2016] cannot be presumed that the wife is not entitled for any interim maintenance allowance being living in adultery.
So far as the question of enhancing the interim maintenance allowance is concerned, it is worth observing that the final order of maintenance will be passed after taking into consideration the evidence to be led by both the sides. This interim maintenance allowance is applicable only till the final adjudication of the matter after taking into consideration the evidence adduced. Morover, the amount of the monthly income of husband/respondent is yet to be proved by cogent and sufficient evidence. At the same time, these facts are also to be taken into consideration that one son and two daughters born out of the wedlock of both the parties are living with husband and he has to bear the expenses of these children including the medical expenses and other day to day expenses. This is an admitted case that all the three children are residing with husband.
In view of above circumstances, it does not appear that any interference is required to be made in the order passed by learned Family Judge, Alwar so as to secure the ends of justice.
Hence, both the revision petitions do not deserve any admission and accordingly dismissed.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI), J.
Mohit/35