HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1417 / 2016
Sajid Khan S/o Shri Abdul Raseed Khan, By Caste Mohammedan,
R/o-Railway Fatak, Near Christian Kabristan, Railway Station Om
Vihar Colony, Byawar, Distt. Ajmer (Raj.).
Smt. Sabnam W/o Shri Sajid Khan D/o Shri Ibrahim Ji, By Caste
Kaji Mohammedan, R/o-Kajion Ka Mohall, Near Police Station,
Jaitaran, Distt. Pali (Raj.).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
impugned judgment dated 03.08.2016, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali (for short, ‘learned appellate
Court’), whereby learned appellate Court has affirmed order dated
21.04.2016, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jaitaran (for short, ‘learned trial Court’).
By the judgment impugned, learned appellate Court has
affirmed order of learned trial Court passed under Sections 12, 18,
19, 20 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the
The facts, apposite for the purpose of this petition, are that
on 16.06.2012, marriage between petitioner and respondent was
solemnized as per Muslim law. The complaint laid on behalf of
(2 of 3)
respondent unfurls that despite her showing affability and
faithfully discharging marital obligations, she was ill-treated by the
petitioner for dowry. Allegations in this behalf are also levelled
against members of the in-laws family including the allegation of
giving beatings to her. The prevailing atmosphere at her in-laws’
family compelled the respondent to leave matrimonial home
twelve months earlier from the date of laying the application
before trial Court in the year 2014. In the complaint, the
respondent has further asserted that she has no source of income,
therefore, she is unable to maintain herself. A fact that petitioner
and his other family members are facing trial for offence under
Section 498A and 406 I.P.C. is also highlighted in the complaint.
Showing monthly income of the petitioner to the tune of
Rs.40,000/-, respondent has claimed maintenance of Rs. 12,000/-
Learned trial Court, after considering evidence and other
materials available on record, moderately assessed maintenance
to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month and directed the petitioner to
pay the same from the date of application.
Feeling dismayed with the order of learned trial Court,
petitioner approached learned appellate Court and the learned
appellate Court, after examining the matter threadbare and upon
appreciation of evidence available on record, fully concurred with
the findings of the learned trial Court. Finally, the learned
appellate Court, by judgment impugned, rejected the appeal. It is
in that background, petitioner has approached this Court.
(3 of 3)
Upon examining the impugned judgment passed by learned
appellate Court as well as order passed by learned trial Court, in
my opinion, in the present era of inflation, maintenance amount
awarded to the respondent cannot be categorized as excessive or
exorbitant. During subsistence of matrimony, petitioner, as
husband, is bound to maintain his wife-respondent and he cannot
shirk from his responsibility. As the matter has been examined by
both the Courts below thoroughly, unhesitatingly, I feel satisfied
that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting
interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
There is apparently no reason to find any fault with the impugned
judgment about its correctness or legality so as to interfere with
the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Resultantly, the petition fails and the same is hereby