Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajendra Kumar Saini vs Smt Seema Tanwar on 3 October, 2016
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
1
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 2909/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR.
ORDER
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 2909/2016
WITH
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 3019/2016
Rajendra Kumar Saini Son of Shri Kaishav Ram Saini Resident
of Ward No. 4, Girls School opposite side Sawami Dayanand
Nagar, Tejara, District-Alwar (Rajasthan)
Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Seema Tanwar wife of Shri Rajendra Kumar Sani D/of
Shri Lallu Lal Saini Caste-Maali Resident-House No. 58, Bhopaji
House Saroj Cinema Ke Samane, Chandpol Bajar Police Station
Sanjay Cercal, Jaipur(RAjasthan).
Respondent.
DATE OF ORDER : 03.10.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
Mr. Surendra Singh, for the petitioner.
BY THE COURT:
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by petitioner Rajendra Kumar Saini challenging order dated 11.05.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 12, Jaipur Metropolitan(for 2 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 2909/2016 short 'the appellate court') whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as also order dated 12.12.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judge and Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(for short 'the trial court') whereby the trial court allowed interim maintenance application of the respondent-wife and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per month to respondent-wife as interim maintenance from the date of filing of application, i.e. 17.01.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court committed serious error of law as well as facts in awarding the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,200/- per month. The respondent is government teacher and not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner, who is handicapped having 80% disability. The petitioner filed an application of restitution of conjugal rights and judicial separation before Sessions Judge No. 1, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar wherein in reply, the respondent-wife stated that the petitioner is unemployed and she is government teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is handicapped and not having any source of income. Besides, the petitioner is having liability of old parents also. 3
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 2909/2016 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner- husband and perused the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below, this court is of the view that the provision of grant of interim maintenance is enacted for social justice and specially to protect women and children and falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The provision gives effect to natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish the person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The matter is still pending before the learned Trial Court and the parties will be free to lead their evidence before the learned Trial Court at later stage, as at this stage, only interim maintenance has been granted to the respondent-wife by the both the Courts below. In my considered view and in the conclusion, I am inclined to observe that the petitioner being husband has to maintain and must maintain his wife, that being pious obligation to discharge as per Hindu Shastra.
4
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 2909/2016 In view of above discussion, I find no illegality or error in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, warranting any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J.
Manoj, S.NO.38.