Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raisuddin vs State & Anr on 10 February, 2011
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO.923/2008-Raisuddin vs. State & Anr.
S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO. 1265/2008- Smt. Parveen Bano vs. State & Ors.
Order dt: 10/2/2011
1/4
S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO.923/2008
(Raisuddin vs. State & Anr.)
S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO. 1265/2008
(Smt. Parveen Bano vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)
DATE OF ORDER : 10/2/2011
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr.M.K.Garg, for the petitioner husband Mr.N.R.Goswami, for the respondent Wife Mr.Vinit Jain for the other private respondents.
1. Heard learned counsels.
2. Both the parties are present in the Court.
3. The present revision petitions are directed against the order dated 21/11/2007, whereby, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner has dismissed both the cross appeals (criminal appeal no. 42/2007 Raisuddin vs. State and ors. & criminal appeal no. 55/2007 - Parveen Bano vs. Raisuddin) regarding grant of maintenance to the respondent wife Parveen Bano, which the court below has fixed at Rs.750/- pm for respondent wife Parveen Bano and Rs.500/- for minor son Aavesh Khan, who is living with the respondent wife from the date of application dated 3/1/2007.
S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO.923/2008-Raisuddin vs. State & Anr. S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO. 1265/2008- Smt. Parveen Bano vs. State & Ors.
Order dt: 10/2/2011 2/4
4. Merits of the contentions raised by rival parties apart, the parties were heard on the issue of payment of lump sum permanent alimony by the petitioner husband Raisuddin to the respondent wife Parveen Bano and minor son Aavesh Khan.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.K.Garg submitted that petitioner is doing the job as a Painter on day to day basis and is an unskilled worker, therefore, he has no resources to clear off the arrears of maintenance as directed by courts below, however, he and his father would arrange loan from the private sources or bank to pay permanent alimony to put an end to the matrimonial dispute between the parties. He also submitted that a sum of Rs.25,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner to the respondent wife by barely managing such payment. He also submitted that the petitioner has lived in the residential house of respondent wife with her parents and the allegation of domestic violence against him are not tenable.
6. Per contra, Mr.Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent wife submitted that the maintenance has not been paid by the S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO.923/2008-Raisuddin vs. State & Anr. S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO. 1265/2008- Smt. Parveen Bano vs. State & Ors.
Order dt: 10/2/2011 3/4 petitioner husband as per the order under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the respondent wife is barely managing to survive with her minor son Aavesh Khan, so also the maintenance awarded by the court below is a paltry amount which otherwise deserves to be increased. He also submitted that respondent wife is also not qualified person and some of her `Stridhan' in the form of Gold Jewelery is still with the petitioner husband, which fact is seriously disputed by the petitioner's counsel and petitioner himself.
7. Initially, the Court suggested the parties to arrive at mutual settlement and start living together for the benefit of the family as such and the minor child, however, it appears that parties are not ready and willing to do so. The initial amount of permanent alimony suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon instructions from the petitioner husband was Rs.2,50,000/- lacs after taking into account the amount of Rs.25,000/- already paid. However, looking to the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent wife that some of the `Stridhan' is still with the petitioner husband and the arrears of maintenance have not been paid by the husband petitioner, this Court S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO.923/2008-Raisuddin vs. State & Anr. S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO. 1265/2008- Smt. Parveen Bano vs. State & Ors.
Order dt: 10/2/2011 4/4 considers it just and proper to increase the amount of permanent alimony from Rs.2.5 lacs, as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to Rs.3 lacs. The said amount of Rs.3 lacs is acceptable to the respondent wife and the learned counsel for the respondent wife submits that the said amount of Rs. 3 lacs should be net of the amount already paid, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said net amount of permanent alimony of Rs.3 lacs shall be paid by the petitioner husband to respondent wife within three months from today against entire past, present and future liability of petitioner husband as far as monetary relief to her is concerned.
8. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are disposed of by mutual settlement between the parties about this issue relating to maintenance and other amounts. No costs.
(DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.
item no. 9 -10 baweja/-