HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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
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
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dron Kaushik
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jayant Joshi
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
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
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
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
The criminal revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
The stay petition is also dismissed.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)