PRASHANT BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Special Court Counterfeit Currency, Jaipur City Jaipur in criminal appeal No. 07/2009 allowing the appeal against the order dated 18.4.2009 whereby the Judicial Magistrate No. 20 Jaipur City Jaipur granting maintenance in the amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month increased to Rs. 15,000/- per month.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Petitioner and the non-Petitioner No. 2 married on 6.2.2004 at Gurgaon Haryana according to Hindu rites and rituals. The Petitioner is paying Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-Petitioner No. 2 in pursuance to the order dated 18.4.2009 of the Judicial Magistrate No. 20 Jaipur City Jaipur. This order dated 18.4.2009 has been challenged by the non-Petitioner No. 2 by way of filing appeal before the Sessions Judge Jaipur City for increasing the amount of maintenance and the same was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Counterfeit Currency Jaipur City, Jaipur. The Special Judge after hearing both the parties increased the maintenance amount to Rs. 15,000/- looking to her ailment of damaging of both kidnies and failure of renal system and she is living with her parents, by a detailed order dated 23.10.2009. In such types of ailment the medicines are very expensive.

(3.) Mr. Anand Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the package of the Petitioner is about 8.5 lac per year but out of which he has to pay the installments of Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 13,000/- per month for a Flat purchased by him at Bangalore. He has further contended that his father has retired and his parents are dependent on him. He has also purchased a car for which installments are to be paid monthly. The Petitioner has contended that he is prepared to keep her wife but she has refused to reside with him and is residing with her parents. The non-Petitioner No. 2 is working as Accountant in Gyan Vihar College. In these circumstances it was prayed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the non-Petitioner No. 2 is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the Petitioner.