Home > DV Judgements > HC: On non payment of maintenance, employer of husband can be directed to deduct amount and deposit to wife’s account

HC: On non payment of maintenance, employer of husband can be directed to deduct amount and deposit to wife’s account

Pooran Mal vs State And Anr on 20 July, 2011

name=”textfield” rows=”27″ cols=”100″>

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

O R D E R

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.0574/2007

POORAN MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

DATE: 20.07.2011

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

None present for the petitioner.

Ms. Rekha Madnani, Public Prosecutor

for the State.

****

The present revision petition was filed way back on 16.10.2007. Registry pointed out three defects way back on 06.11.2007, but the same have not been removed despite grant of time on 23.09.2008, 23.10.2008, 17.12.2008 and 07.01.2009, therefore, revision petition deserves to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

2. However, I examined the matter and from the impugned order dated 20.08.2007 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.38/2007, it appears that respondent-wife filed an application under Section 23 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the trial Court, wherein vide order dated 19.04.2007, it was directed that a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month towards maintenance will be paid w.e.f. 09.04.2007. Since amount was not paid, therefore, respondent Laxmi Devi filed an application that Employer of petitioner Pooran Mal may be directed to deduct the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month from his salary and to deposit the same in her bank account. The application was allowed by the trial Court on 21.06.2007 and necessary directions were issued to the Employer of petitioner. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred, which was dismissed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide order dated 20.08.2007. Being aggrieved with the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. From the above facts, it is clear that the learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court, both, were right in passing the impugned orders by directing the Employer of petitioner to deduct the amount of maintenance from the salary of petitioner and to deposit the same in the bank account of respondent. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same.

4. Hence, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J.

/KKC/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

O R D E R

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. STAY APPLICATION INWARD NO.1340/DATED 16.10.2007 IN

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.0574/2007

POORAN MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

DATE: 20.07.2011

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

None present for the petitioner.

Ms. Rekha Madnani, Public Prosecutor

for the State.

****

Since the revision petition itself has been dismissed, therefore, this stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J.

/KKC/

Advertisements
Categories: DV Judgements
  1. False498a
    August 2, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    Indian Judiciary has become crap… These judges are just blind, falling to women unjust demands. No hearing og Men… Shaadi kya karli, bas… hindustan mein toh shaadi karna paap ho gaya hai…

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: