[2026:RJ-JP:15650] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 857/2015 1. Ritu Verma W/o Akash Kumar D/o Chunnilal 2. Neelam D/o Akash Kumar minor through her mother Ritu Verma Both resident of Todabhim District Karauli ----Petitioner Versus Aakash Kumar S/o Madanlal R/o Railway Quarter No. 5, Near Sabar Gate, Opposite Railway Cabin, Kasanganj, District Etah (UP) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP Mr. Subham Sain Mr. Umesh Vyas Mr. Rahul for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant misc. petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 05.07.2013, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Todabhim, District Karauli by which the application submitted by the petitioners under Section 127 Cr.P.C. has been partly allowed and the maintenance amount previously awarded in favour of the petitioner No. 1 has been enhanced from Rs. 1500/- per month to Rs.2000/-per month and maintenance amount previously awarded in favour of the petitioner No. 2 has been enhanced from Rs. 1000/- per month to Rs. 2000/- per month. [2026:RJ-JP:15650] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-857/2015] 2. It appears that the respondent was aggrieved by the aforesaid order, hence he filed a revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hindauncity and the same has been partly allowed vide impugned order dated 24.11.2014 and the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate was upheld to the extent of directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month to the petitioners. However, the date from which this payment was to be made was changed from the earlier date of 29.09.2010 i.e. the date of filing the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner to the revised date of 05.07.2013 i.e., the date of the order enhancing the maintenance amount. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. 4. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to make the submissions. 5. Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner No. 1 has performed second marriage and she is not entitled to get any amount of maintenance. 6. This Court has perused the impugned order passed by the Courts below. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 was solemnized with the respondent and out from the said wedlock petitioner No.2 has born. It appears that on account of matrimonial dispute between the parties, the petitioner No. 1 and respondent started residing separately and thereafter the petitioners submitted an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent for getting maintenance. The aforesaid [2026:RJ-JP:15650] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-857/2015] application was allowed on 21.04.2009 and a direction was issued to the respondent to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 1500/- per month to the petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 1000/-per month to the petitioner No. 2. 8. It appears that finding the aforesaid amount to be inadequate, an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the petitioners before the same Court and the same was allowed vide impugned order dated 05.07.2013 and the order dated 21.04.2009 was modified and the respondent was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 4000/- to the petitioners w.ef. from the date of filing the application i.e. 29.09.2010. 9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the respondent approached the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court has partly allowed the revision petition vide impugned order dated 24.11.2014. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, in case the parties are facing any difficulty in the amounts of award, they are at liberty to approach the Court of Judicial Magistrate by way of filing a fresh application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and in case, such application is submitted again, it is expected from the learned Magistrate to decide the same strictly in accordance with law in the light of the judgment passed by Rajnesh Vs. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 after getting the affidavit of both parties on record with regard to their income, assets and earnings etc. 11. In case, the respondent submits any documents with regard to second marriage of the petitioner No. 1, it is expected from the learned Magistrate to deal with all arguments and record evidence if necessary and pass fresh order. [2026:RJ-JP:15650] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-857/2015] 12. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/41