HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6137/2019

Mahesh Raj S/o Shri Sonarain, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste
Rebari, Resident of Rawatkhera, Jahajpur Police Station, District
Bhilwara.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Samudara W/o Mahesh Raj, By Caste Rebari,
Resident of Rawatkhera, Tehsil And Police Station
Jahajpur, District Bhilwara.
—-Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6129/2019
Mahesh Raj S/o Shri Sonarain, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste
Rebari, Resident of Rawatkhera, Jahajpur Police Station, District
Bhilwara.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Samudara W/o Mahesh Raj, By Caste Rebari,
Resident of Rawatkhera, Tehsil And Police Station
Jahajpur, District Bhilwara
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dinesh K. Godara.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Farzand Ali, G.A. cum A.A.G.
Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

ORDER

04/02/2020

(Downloaded on 08/02/2020 at 08:24:06 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-6137/2019]

The petitioner is the husband of the respondent

Smt.Samudara. Neglected and left to dereliction, Smt.Samudara

filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against him in the

court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jahajpur,

District Bhilwara, which came to be registered as Cr.Misc.Case

No.135/2015. The petitioner is posted as a Cattle Guard in the

Forest Department of the Govt. of Rajasthan. The application

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent came to be

allowed by the trial court by order dated 5.7.2019, whereby the

petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to

the respondent as maintenance. The trial court held that the

petitioner had treated his wife (respondent) with cruelty. The plea

of the petitioner before the trial court was that the respondent

was not his legally wedded wife and that she had put up a totally

fraudulent case in the trial court regarding her being the legally

wedded wife of the appellant. The trial court took note of the fact

that the claimant Smt.Samudara examined herself as A.W.1 in the

evidence. She pertinently stated in her examination in chief that

she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. No

question was put to Smt.Samudara in her cross-examination

controverting this specific assertion made by her in the

examination in chief. A case was filed by Smt.Samudara against

the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C.

wherein also, she was treated to be the legally wedded wife of the

petitioner. In view of the pertinent fact that the petitioner never

disputed the sworn testimony of the respondent that she was his

legally wedded wife, by putting any question in this regard in the

cross-examination, there is no escape from the conclusion that the

petitioner acquiesced to this situation. The application filed by

(Downloaded on 08/02/2020 at 08:24:06 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-6137/2019]

Smt.Samudara came to be accepted by the learned ACJM,

Jahajpur by order dated 5.7.2019 and she was awarded a sum of

Rs.1500/- per month as monthly maintenance. The petitioner as

well as Smt.Samudara assailed the order passed by the learned

Magistrate by filing separate Revisions No.47/2019 (Mahesh Raj

Vs. Smt.Samudara) and 43/2019 (Smt.Samudara Vs. Mahesh Raj

Anr.). While Smt.Samudara sought enhancement in the

quantum of maintenance, the petitioner questioned the very grant

of maintenance to her. The revisional court rejected the revision

filed by the petitioner whereas, the revision filed by

Smt.Samudara was accepted and she was awarded enhanced

maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month from the date of the

application. The adverse order passed by the revisional court in

the two revisions is assailed by the petitioner by way of these two

misc. petitions.

Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by

Shri Godara learned counsel representing the petitioner and after

going through the impugned orders, I am of the firm opinion that

the impugned order dated 9.10.2019 passed by the revisional

court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity whatsoever

warranting interference therein. The petitioner is a government

servant drawing salary well in excess of Rs.40,000/- per month.

He took a totally false stance that Smt.Samudara was not his

legally wedded wife whereas, the facts indicate otherwise. Since

no question was put up to Smt.Samudara in her cross-

examination on this aspect, her sworn testimony remains

uncontroverted. The pittance of Rs.1500/- per month awarded by

the learned Magistrate to Smt.Samudara by way of monthly

maintenance is like adding insult to injury. On the one hand, the

(Downloaded on 08/02/2020 at 08:24:06 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-6137/2019]

lady (respondent) has been ditched by the petitioner and in

addition thereto, her fervent plea for appropriate maintenance was

not addressed properly. In this background, the revisional court

was perfectly justified in rejecting the petitioner’s revision and in

enhancing the maintenance awarded to Smt.Samudara from

Rs.1500/- per month to Rs.5000/- per month while accepting her

revision. The only indulgence which the petitioner can be extended

is to permit him to file an application before the trial court within

next 30 days with a prayer to be permitted to deposit the arrears

of accrued maintenance in easily instalments. In case, the

petitioner moves such an application before the trial court, the

same shall be considered sympathetically.

With these observations and directions, the misc. petitions

are dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Stay petitions are also dismissed.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

/tarun goyal/ 42

(Downloaded on 08/02/2020 at 08:24:06 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)