HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 33/2018

Amit Kumar S/o Shri Tej Narayan, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Gali
No. 6, Near Kriyana Bhawan, Adjoining Raghunath Temple,
Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh Rajasthan

—-Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Parveen Alias Madhu W/o Shri Amit Kumar, D/o Shri Ram
Rakha Joshi, By Caste Brahmin, R/o 304, Patel Nagar, Ward No.
9, Near Purani Aabadi Tower, Infront Of Sanjay Vatika, Sri
Ganganagar Rajasthan

—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dron Kaushik
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jayant Joshi

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Order

19/09/2018

This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the

petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 15.11.2017

passed by the Family Court, Sri Ganganagar (for short ‘the court

below’) whereby the court below while disposing of the

proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated at the instance of

the respondent has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of

Rs.9,500/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of

the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court below has also

directed that if the respondent is getting any maintenance amount

from the petitioner by other means, the same would be adjusted.

(2 of 4) [CRLR-33/2018]

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

court below has erred in directing the petitioner to pay monthly

maintenance to the tune of Rs.9,500/-. It is submitted that after

marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, both of them lived

happily for about 3 years but thereafter the respondent left the

house of the petitioner as per her own will. It is also argued that

from the evidence available on record, it is clear that the

petitioner is ready to keep the respondent in a separate house but

she has refused to live with him.

Learned counsel has also submitted that before the

court below though no evidence regarding income of the petitioner

has been produced but the court below, on the basis of surmises

and conjectures, has given a finding that the petitioner is earning

hand-same amount.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the findings arrived at by the court below are perverse, hence, the

impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has

vehemently opposed the petition and argued that the court below

has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The court below has taken into consideration the fact

that after marriage of the petitioner and respondent, they lived

together for about 3 years. The court below has observed that the

respondent has alleged that on 11.7.2007 she was thrown out

from her in-laws’ house and the petitioner and his family members

demanded Rs.15,00,000/- and a motorcycle in dowry, for which,

an FIR was registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Sri

Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and
(3 of 4) [CRLR-33/2018]

498A I.P.C. wherein the police has filed charge sheet and the

matter is pending trial in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri

Ganganagar.

It appears that the court below tried to mediate

between the parties but since the petitioner does not want to keep

the respondent with him with respect, love and affection and only

in order to evade due payment of maintenance, is ready to keep

the respondent with him, the court below was forced to pass the

impugned order. The court below has taken into consideration the

fact that the family of the petitioner is running a publishing house

and publishing a daily newspaper and as such the petitioner is

having good income from that source.

The court below has also taken into consideration the

fact that the petitioner has failed to produce any material to

suggest that the respondent is having sufficient sources to

maintain herself. It is also taken into consideration that in the

proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, the competent court

has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent

to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per month but the petitioner is not

paying the said amount regularly.

After taking into consideration all the above facts and

circumstances of the case, the court below has passed the

impugned judgment whereby it directed the petitioner to pay

monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.9,500/- per month.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having gone through the impugned order as well as the evidence

produced by the parties before the court below, the certified

copies of which have been provided by the petitioner, I am of the

opinion that the court below has not committed any illegality in
(4 of 4) [CRLR-33/2018]

passing the impugned order, hence, no case for interference is

made out.

The criminal revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.

The stay petition is also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Babulal/94

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)