Merely Because Wife Filed Application After 36yrs of Marriage, Husband Can't Be Absolved of His Obligation To Pay Interim Maintenance: Rajasthan HC

Essentially, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order passed by Gram Nyayalay, Aspur, District Dungarpur ("Trial Court"), whereby the Trial Court had partly allowed the application for interim maintenance filed by the respondent-wife. The Trial Court had directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance.

As per the petitioner, the couple got married on 17.02.1976 and have been living separately since 1986.

Justice Dinesh Mehta, while dismissing the petition, opined,

"In the opinion of this Court, an order under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is in the nature of interim maintenance and husband, who admittedly earns Rs.40,000/- per month cannot be absolved of his obligation to pay interim maintenance, merely because the respondent – wife has chosen to file the application after 36 years of marriage."

The court also refused to interfere in the present petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to point out any jurisdictional error or apparent error on the face of record and moreover, a meagre sum of Rs.5,000/- has been ordered to be paid.

Further, the court noted that the fact as to whether the petitioner and the wife are living separately since 1986, so also the circumstances in which respondent has filed the petition for maintenance, are yet to be finally determined by the Court concerned.

Appearing for the petitioner, Adv. Mohit Singhvi argued that the present petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed in the year 2021, is clearly an abuse of the process of law as the petitioner and the respondent got married on 17.02.1976 and have been living separately since 1986.

He further argued that the Court below has treated petitioner's income to be Rs.1,00,000/- whereas his return of income tax shows that his income is approximately Rs.40,000/- per month.

Adv. Mohit Singhvi and PP Mahipal Bishnoi appeared for the petitioner and respondent respectively.

Case Title: Chandrakant Jain v. Veermati Jain

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 96