Pankaj Sharma vs Smt. Vandana Sharma

Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.7.2010 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 134/2010 (462/2010), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed and the amount of interim maintenance awarded by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur in favour of respondents-applicants in Application/Complaint No. 15/2009 has been enhanced from Rs. 7000/- per month to Rs. 15,000/- per month. In this revision petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your Lordship will be pleased to accept/allow this criminal revision petition and the orders dated 31st March, 2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sr. Division) No. 9, Jaipur city, Jaipur in application/complaint No. 15/2009 and the order dated 21st July, 2010 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal appeal No. 134/2010 (462/2010), may kindly be quashed and set-aside.

Any other order or direction, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case protecting the rights and interest of the petitioner, be also passed.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 28.2.2008, the marriage of petitioner took place with respondent Vandana Sharma. On 28th November, 2008, on account of the said wedlock, a male child born. On 27th August, 2008, respondent left the matrimonial home. On 18th August, 2009, respondent moved an application making the domestic incident report. The petitioner on receiving the notices, filed a detailed reply before the court concerned. On 31st March, 2010, the trial court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month. Against the said order, the petitioner and respondent filed their appeals. The appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed on 21st July, 2010 and the interim maintenance grated by the trial court has been increased by the appellate court from Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. Against the said order dated 21st July, 2010, this revision was preferred before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Saransh Saini has contended that the trial court and appellate court have passed the impugned orders dated 31st March, 2010 and 21st July, 2010 arbitrarily and against the fact and material on record, hence the same should be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that petitioner is earning only Rs. 30,000/- per month approximately. He has further contended that the job of the petitioner was not of suitable/permanent nature and within a period of short period of three years, he was compelled to work in different companies. He has further contended that so far as the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Manager (Operation) is concerned, he was appointed in January, 2010 and he was put on probation and he was getting basic salary of Rs. 14,032/-. Further he has contended that both the courts below while granting the interim maintenance have not considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. He has further drawn the attention of this Court on the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Paramveer Singh Vs. Suresh Kanwar, and prayed that orders of both the courts below be quashed and set-aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that orders of both the courts below are just and proper. Further he has drawn the attention of this Court on para nos. 6 and 7 of the order dated 21st July, 2010 passed by the appellate court, which are reproduced as under:

He has further drawn the attention of this court on the judgment reported in 2011 WLC (Raj) UC page 688 - Smt. Sarita & Anr. Versus Manoj Jangid & Ors. and stated the orders of both the courts below to be just and proper.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper to interfere in the order dated 21.7.2010 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 134/2010 (462/2010) as also the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sr. Division) No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur in application/complaint No. 15/2009 and hence the revision petition filed by the petitioner being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

However, the trial court is directed to conclude and decide the complaint pending before him, within a period of three months, as the matter is pending before him, from the last 3 years. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.