Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shailesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Krishan ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 6 March, 2019
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1288/2018
Shailesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Krishan Bihari Sharma B/c
Brahmin, Profession Advocate, aged About 35 Years, R/o Plot
No.43, Venketeshwar Colony, Ajmer Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through PP, Jaipur
2. Kavita Acharaya S/o Shri Yogesh Kumar, aged About 34
Years, R/o Plot No.2-Cha-1, Teachers Colony, Keshavpura,
Kota, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola.
For State(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
06/03/2019
1. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by Order dated 22.06.2018 passed by Family Court No.3, Kota, whereby application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance from 03.06.2014.
2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2, despite service.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is an advocate, who is working with a senior advocate and was not being paid any amount by the senior and was earning a meagre amount of Rs.100-150 per day. It is contended that the status of respondent was higher than that of petitioner and for that reason, (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:12:16 AM) (2 of 3) [CRLR-1288/2018] she left the house of the petitioner after leveling baseless allegations.
3. It is also contended that petitioner applied for restitution of conjugal rights and decree dated 11.06.2017 has been passed in his favour under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is also contended that respondent No.2 is taking tution which fact is admitted by her in her cross-examination. She has more degrees than the petitioner. Court has not considered the same and has awarded maintenance from the date of application. It is argued that the respondent No.2 had not moved any application for interim maintenance and hence, there was no justification for granting maintenance from the date of filing of application.
4. It is also contended that respondent No.2 has filed criminal cases against the petitioner and petitioner is not even able to perform his duties as an advocate. Petitioner is not having any agricultural land or school, hence, grant of maintenance from the date of application is unjustified.
5. I have considered the contentions and have perused the evidence placed on record.
6. Court below has come to the conclusion that the maximum income of the petitioner could be Rs.10,000/- per month. In the impugned order dated 22.06.2018, Court has not determined the income of the petitioner on the date of filing application. Since, respondent No.2 is taking tuition, I do not find any justification in the order vide which maintenance has been awarded from 03.06.2014. However, taking note of the fact that petitioner is an advocate with standing of around eleven years as of date, the award of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month from date of order is justifiable.
(Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:12:16 AM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-1288/2018]
7. In the result, revision petition is partly allowed, while upholding the amount of Rs.4,000/- awarded as maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the maintenance amount is awarded from the date of order in place of date of application.
8. Revision petition is partly allowed.
9. Stay application and pending applications stands disposed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J.
Chandan/72 (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:12:16 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)