Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hemraj vs Jyoti (2025:Rj-Jd:3496-Db) on 20 January, 2025

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Madan Gopal Vyas

[2025:RJ-JD:3496-DB]                   (1 of 2)                        [CMA-536/2024]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 536/2024

Hemraj S/o Netram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 3/252 Mukta
Prasad Nagar, Bikaner (Raj.)
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                      Versus
Jyoti D/o Sitaram, W/o Hemraj, R/o Ward No. 9 (Old) New Ward
No.    11,    Behind     Baba        Ramdev         Temple,        Sangaria,   Dist.
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Deen Dayal Chitlangi
For Respondent(s)           :



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order 20/01/2025

1. Defects pointed out by the Office are overruled.

2. The matter is heard.

3. The present appeal is against the order dated 21.11.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangaria in Civil Misc. Case No.29/2022 (Jyoti Vs. Hemraj), whereby the learned Trial Court has granted the interim maintenance to the respondent- wife. The learned Trial Court has examined the matter at length and found that the appellant-husband is a Government servant serving on the post of Constable with basic pay of Rs.42,000/- per month and thus, arrived at the conclusion of granting interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.7,000/- per month. (Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:11:21 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:3496-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-536/2024]

4. This Court, while considering the fact that the appellant- husband is a Government servant and has a basic pay of Rs.42,000/- per month (without allowances), is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 is a justified order and does not call for any interference of this Court from the appellant's side. Thus, this misc. appeal is dismissed.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 3-nirmala/-

(Downloaded on 23/01/2025 at 11:11:22 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)