RAJESH GAUR Vs. ANURADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal misc. petition has been filed assailing the order dtd. 7/3/2025 passed by learned Addl. Session Judge No.1, Nagaur whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner-husband has been rejected and the order dtd. 20/5/2024 was affirmed, wherein the petitioner-husband was directed to pay the maintenance to the respondents (wife and son) to the tune of Rs.15,000.00 (Rs.8,000.00 to the respondent No.1-Anuradha and Rs.7,000.00 to the minor son Vansh) from the date of filing the application i.e. on 5/5/2015.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 5/5/2015 the respondents filed an application for grant of maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. while stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23/11/2010 and out of their wedlock a son, namely Vansh (respondent No.2 herein) was born on 16/10/2011. Thereafter, due to various atrocities inflicted by the petitioner-husband, the respondent-wife has been living separately since 2015. In the application filed under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C., the respondent wife has asserted that the husband is earning more than Rs.40,000.00 per month but neglects/refuses to maintain the respondents (wife and son), and the respondents are not having any source of income and are unable to maintain themselves, therefore, they may be awarded maintenance @ Rs.26,000.00 per month.

(3.) The said application for maintenance was contested by the petitioner-husband by way of filing reply dtd. 8/9/2015, wherein the petitioner-husband has admitted the fact of marriage but denied the averments qua the respondents are entitled for maintenance of Rs.26,000.00 per month. It was pleaded that the petitioner husband is earning Rs.6,475.00 only and not Rs.40,000.00as claimed, it was also pleaded that the respondent-wife is well qualified (M.A.) and earns about Rs.12,000.00 per month by working as a teacher in a private school, and that she had left her matrimonial home out of her own will, and that the petitioner-husband has not deserted her, therefore, she is not entitled to seek maintenance as claimed and prayed for dismissal of the application.