Sergeant Denying Maintenance To Wife & Daughter Not Justified; Daily Life Expenses, Education Very Costly: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that in the present times, when the education itself is very costly and the daily life requires a respectable amount, the denial of maintenance to the wife and the daughter cannot be justified.

The petitioner was thus directed to pay Rs. 15,000 per month maintenance to them.

The Petitioner had filed the present criminal review petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 and 401 CrPC against the Family Court's order against an order which allowed the wife's application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance.

Relying on Pooja Gaur v. Umit @ Pinky Patel [(2016) 3 DMC 194] of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the petitioner submitted that since there was an acquittal under Sections 498-A & 406 IPC vide order dated 14.07.2021, therefore, the aforequoted precedent law is applicable, and thus, he is not liable to pay the maintenance.

The petitioner further submitted that he is getting a monthly income of Rs.55,000/-. He also submitted that the arrears have created financial difficulties to him and he has a joint family, which he has to maintain, which are also not plausible reasons sufficient to deny the maintenance to the wife and daughter.

Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while dismissing the petition, observed,

"In the present times, when the education itself is very costly and the daily life requires a respectable amount, the denial of maintenance to the wife and the daughter cannot be justified. The submission made by the petitioner that the matter be remanded back is also of no consequence because the income is admitted and the quantum is justified as only his liability of the maintenance is Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Rs.5,000/- to the daughter, whereas the petitioner is admittedly earning monthly income of about Rs.55,000/-."

The court also observed that the precedent law cited by the petitioner is not applicable in the present case because the acquittal of the petitioner is only by giving him benefit of doubt. On reading of the judgement, it comes out that there was a consistency in the statements of the witnesses and it is only on count of certain minor discrepancies, the benefit of doubt has been given to the petitioner, added the court.

Refusing to delve in the merit of the case, the court opined that once the benefit of doubt has been enjoyed, then the petitioner is not entitled to claim that he is not liable to pay the maintenance to the wife and the daughter.

The petitioner, Mr. Rana Ram Veera, appeared in person before the court. The counsels for the respondent include Dr. Shailendra Kala, with Mr. Anuj Kala.

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 188