[2026:RJ-JP:22348] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6206/2016 Dr. Hari Narayan Lohiya S/o Late Ghasi Lal Lohiya, R/o 176-A, Vrindavan Colony, Khirni Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner-Non-Applicant Versus Smt. Shakuntala Devi W/o Hari Narayan Lohiya, D/o Late Ramlal, R/o 49, Lohiya Colony, Near 200 Ft. Byepass, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondent-Applicant For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, P.P., Mr. Vinod Pathak, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 26/05/2026 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner with challenge to the order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Judge Family Court No. 2, Jaipur in Case No. 355/2015 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance to the respondent-applicant @ 5000 per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 10.06.2015. 2. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner, on 07.05.2026 also when the case was called for hearing no one appeared on behalf the petitioner. 3. Earlier, on 15.05.2023 when no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. However, on an application filed by the petitioner, miscellaneous petition was restored vide order dated 25.08.2025. [2026:RJ-JP:22348] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-6206/2016] 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner is not sincere about this petition and today also he has not appeared, the petition is being dismissed on merit. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant submits that there is no illegality and perversity in the order passed by the Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur for grant of maintenance in favour of the respondent-applicant. The stand of the petitioner before the Family Court was that, with the consent of the respondent-applicant, he solemnized marriage with a lady named Suman and the applicant is living adultery life with one Ramesh and she is having sufficient means for her livelihood and therefore she is not entitled to the maintenance. 6. This is not in dispute that the respondent-applicant is illegally wedded wife of the petitioner. The stand taken by the petitioner cannot be the ground for denying maintenance to the respondent-applicant. 7. Having gone through the order passed by the Court below, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer any illegality. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J 16/SHRUTI SHARMA