[2026:RJ-JP:13521] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1820/2020 Dilip Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Kailash Chand, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 16-A, Sainath Vihar Colony, Devpura, Bundi Tehsil And District Bundi (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus Preksha Goyal, Aged About 2 Years, Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Her Mother Smt. Jaymala W/o Shri Dilip Kumar Goyal D/o Shri Sitaram Ji, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Umren District Alwar, Presently Resident Of E-66, Tharmal Colony, Sakatpura, Kota (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 07.03.2020, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kota in Family Miscellaneous Case No. 1572/2019, by which a direction has been issued to the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent, who is his minor daughter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving as Patwari, but he was placed under suspension and wife of the petitioner, who is mother of the respondent, is also serving as PA-III in Thermal Power Plant at Kota and she is in a position to maintain her daughter, hence, under these [2026:RJ-JP:13521] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1820/2020] circumstances the impugned order passed by the Court below is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the material available on record reveals that this fact is not in dispute that marriage of the petitioner was solemnised with Smt. Jaymala on 19.04.2017 and the respondent was born out from the said wedlock on 09.01.2018. It appears that owing to certain matrimonial disputes between the parties, wife of the petitioner started residing separately with her minor daughter and submitted an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Kota seeking maintenance for the daughter i.e. respondent. During pendency of the main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the minor daughter/respondent. This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. At the time of passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was placed under suspension and he was getting a meager amount of Rs. 11,749/-. However, his suspension order might have been revoked at a later stage but the petitioner cannot be permitted to escape from his liability to pay maintenance to his minor daughter only on the ground that his wife i.e. mother of the respondent is also earning through public employment and it is the joint liability and responsibility of the parents to maintain their minor children. 5. Looking to the fact that the main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is still lying pending for adjudication on its merits, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant misc. [2026:RJ-JP:13521] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1820/2020] petition granting liberty to both the parties to submit their respective affidavits in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 with regard to their income, assets and properties. 6. It is expected from the Family Court to look into the aforesaid affidavits and the documents annexed therein along with the evidence of both the sides and thereafter pass appropriate orders on the application submitted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 8. It is made clear that in case the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is still lying pending for its adjudication, all possible endeavours be made by the Family Court to decide the said application expeditiously as the matter pertains to the year 2019 and in case the said application has already been decided, then this order will not be given any effect. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Shivam-Puneet/12