HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 39 / 2016
Husna Bano W/o Kasam Ali by caste Musalman, resident of Fefana
Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. Kasam Ali S/o Fazaldeen by caste Musalman, resident of
Ward No. 25, Nohar District Hanumangarh.

2. Fazaldeen S/o Jamaldeen by caste Musalman, resident of
Ward No. 25, Nohar District Hanumangarh.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.GR Bhari.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Kaushal Gautam.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
25/08/2017

By way of this revision, the petitioner seeks enhancement of

maintenance awarded to her by learned Additional Sessions Judge

No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh vide order dated 2.11.2015

while deciding the petitioner’s appeal no.2/2015 at the rate of

Rs.800/- per month from the date of passing of the order.

The petitioner filed an application before the learned

A.C.J.M., Nohar under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act

seeking maintenance from her husband Kasam Ali and father-in-

law which was rejected by the learned Magistrate by order dated

17.10.2011. The learned Magistrate held that the petitioner failed

to lead any evidence to prove the allegation of domestic violence

and consequently rejected the application of the petitioner. The

petitioner challenged the order dated 17.10.2011 by filing an
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-39/2016]

appeal which was decided in the above terms and the respondent

Kasam Ali was directed to pay Rs.800/- by way of monthly

maintenance under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act to the

petitioner who seeks enhancement of the quantum of

maintenance awarded to her by the learned appellate Court.

I have appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned

judgments as well as evidence available on record.

The petitioner, in her statement made a bald allegation that

the respondent Kasam Ali demanded dowry from her. However,

what exactly the demand was and when it was demanded was not

clarified in her evidence. In cross examination, she stated that

Kasam Ali wanted to take her back to matrimonial home but she

was not willing to go there. Admittedly, the respondent Kasam Ali

is suffering from 60% disability in his legs. In the case filed under

Sections 498A and 406 IPC, the competent Court has passed a

judgment of acquittal. In this background, I am of the firm opinion

that the quantum of maintenance awarded to the petitioner by the

appellate Court cannot be held to be unjustified so as to warrant

enhancement.

Consequently, the instant revision petition is hereby

dismissed as being devoid of any merit.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

S.Phophaliya/-