Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Heena Kausar W/O Shri Aadil Hussain, D/O ... vs Aadil Hussain S/O Shri Anwar Hssain B/C ... on 3 May, 2019
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1106/2019
1. Heena Kausar W/o Shri Aadil Hussain, D/o Shri Akhtar Ali
Faruki B/c Musalman, R/o Ward No.50, Ali Nagar,
Fatehpur Road, Sikar, Rajasthan.
2. Aahil S/o Shri Aadil Hussain, Aged About 1 Years, Minor
Through His Natural Guardian Mother Heena Kausar W/o
Shri Aadil Hussain, D/o Shri Akhtar Ali Faruki B/c
Musalman, R/o Ward No.50, Ali Nagar, Fatehpur Road,
Sikar, Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
Aadil Hussain S/o Shri Anwar Hssain B/c Saiyyad Musalman, R/o
Jaisingh Nagar, Jaisingh Purakhor, House No.e-1, Gali Number 2,
Delhi Road, Jaipur, Raj.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohammed Anees HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 03/05/2019
1. Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of order dated 10.01.2019 passed by Family Court, Sikar (Raj.), whereby interim application for maintenance has been dismissed.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners the Court below has not given any justification for dismissing the application qua the Petitioner No.2 who is minor son of the non-applicant- husband.
3. Counsel for the respondent contends that petitioner is not appearing in the proceedings to depose before the Court in the (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:34:28 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1106/2019] maintenance petition. Prayer is made that the Court below be directed to decide the main maintenance application.
4. I have considered the contentions.
5. As far as the interim order is concerned, the Family Court has dismissed the application for interim maintenance on the ground that Petitioner No.1 has lodged an untrue F.I.R. with regard to demand of dowry. Court has also observed that husband-non-petitioner was residing at the house of the in-laws and, therefore, there was no question of demand of dowry.
6. Be that as it may the Court has not given any justification for rejecting the application for interim maintenance qua the Petitioner No.2 who is son of the couple. Even if the Court has dismissed the petition for interim maintenance filed by petitioner- wife, Court should have assigned reasons for not awarding maintenance to Petitioner No.2.
7. There appears to be no justification in not awarding maintenance to Petitioner No.2, hence, the impugned order is quashed.
8. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly allowed. Stay application stands disposed.
9. Court below is directed to decide the interim application afresh. Court should also ensure that the main petition is also decided at the earliest.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J AMIT KUMAR /24 (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 11:34:28 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)