[2025:RJ-JP:115] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1766/2013 1. Smt. Archana Nathawat wife of Shri Rajendra Singh Nathawat D/o late Shri Jawahar Singh aged about 32 years R/o 20, Gopalpura Byepass, Murtikala Colony, Jaipur Tehsil Jaipur. 2. Purvaditya Nathawat son of Shri Rajendra Singh Nathawat aged about 6 years R/o 20, Gopalpura Byepass, Murtikala Colony, Jaipur Tehsil Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Rajendra Singh son of Shri Gulab Singh aged about 39 years R/o Village Loharwara Tehsil Chomu District Jaipur at present Govt. Kukkat Shala, Khatipura Mode, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been lead to the impugned order dated 16.07.2012 passed by Family Court No.1, Jaipur by which an application filed by the petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the respondent has been directed to pay monthly amount of Rs. 7000/- to the petitioners and by way of filing of this petition, the petitioners are also seeking enhancement of the maintenance. 2. The contents of the misc. petition indicate that the petitioners submitted an application seeking maintenance of Rs.35,000/- from the respondent. Since the respondent remained unrepresented inspite of service of notice, hence an ex parte order [2025:RJ-JP:115] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1766/2013] has been passed against the respondent directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.7000/- to the petitioners. 3. No documentary evidence with regard to the income and assets of the respondent has been placed on record hence under these circumstances, the learned Family Judge has passed the impugned order directed the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7000/- to the petitioners. 4. In the considered view of this Court, the order passed by the Family Court is just and proper, which requires no interference of this Court, hence under these circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this misc. petition and accordingly the same is hereby rejected. 5. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to move application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. under the changed circumstances (if any) before the Family Court. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/131