VANSHIKA PAREEK Vs. SANDEP PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dtd. 22/10/2024 passed by the learned Judge Family Court No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No.99/2023 (Smt. Vanshika Pareek v. Sandeep Pandya) whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dtd. 22/10/2024 is bereft of consideration of the facts of the case and relevant law and, is thus, liable to be set aside. It is submitted that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21/11/2021 as per the Hindu rights and rituals. The respondent soon after the marriage started harassing and humiliating the petitioner on account of dowry demand. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed an FIR against the respondent for the offences under Ss. 406, 498-A, 323, 341 and 354 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the application seeking interim maintenance filed by the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is presently working in Cambridge School and she is not having any responsibilities. It is contended that the finding of the Court below for rejecting the interim maintenance application is not based on any cogent evidence, in as much, there is no credible evidence available on record to establish that the petitioner is receiving good salary from Cambridge School.

(3.) Learned counsel submitted that the burden to prove that petitioner is absolutely capable of maintaining herself and is earning sufficient income rests purely on the respondent. However, while passing the impugned order, the onus of proving that the petitioner does not have sufficient means to maintain herself is wrongly shifted upon her.