HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 192/2018

1. Smt. Gyatri Devi W/o Shri Harish Kumar D/o Shri
Sahebram, By Caste Soni, R/o 33 Ward No.39, Meera
Chowk, Street No.2 Sriganganagar.

2. Pragati D/o Shri Harish Kumar Minor Through Her Natural
Guardian Mother Smt. Gyatri Devi

3. Meenal D/o Shri Harish Kumar Minor Through Her Natural
Guardian Mother Smt. Gyatri Devi

4. Doli D/o Shri Harish Kumar Minor Through Natural
Guardian Mother Smt. Gyatri Devi

—-Petitioners
Versus
Harish Kumar S/o Shri Hansraj, By Caste Soni, R/o Shadhu
Colony, Shb Road, Check 3 E, Choti Sriganganagar.

—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VK Bhadu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order

15/01/2020

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners

against the order dated 15.01.2018 passed by learned Family

Judge, Sriganganagar in Cr. Misc. Case No.135/2016 by which the

learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioners

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for awarding the maintenance.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Family

Court while rejecting the application for maintenance has neither

assigned any cogent reason nor considered the fact that out of the

wedlock of petitioner-wife and respondent three children were

(Downloaded on 16/01/2020 at 10:43:25 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-192/2018]

born and they are living with the petitioner-wife. The learned

Family Court has not awarded any maintenance even in favour of

the three minor children. The learned Family Court has drawn a

wrong presumption and thereby rejected the application under

Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-husband

submits that the learned Family Court has considered the matter

in all aspect and has rightly rejected the application under Section

125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court has passed a reasoned order,

which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

order impugned and carefully gone through the record.

In the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has been

pleaded that the marriage of the petitioner-wife was solemnized

with the respondent-husband on 17.05.2005 according to hindu

rites and rituals and at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was

given by the parents of the petitioner-wife. After some time of

marriage, the respondent-husband and his family members

started cruelty with the petitioner-wife for bringing less dowry and

demanded more dowry. Out of wedlock, three children were born

out. After birth of second child, the accused-husband demanded

Rs.1 lac from the petitioner-wife and upon refusal, he had beaten

the petitioner-wife with fist blow. Thereafter in order to resolve

the dispute, a Panchayat meeting was held and upon assurance

given by the respondent-husband for not committing any cruelty

with the petitioner-wife, she again started residing with the

respondent-husband. However, after some time, the respondent-

husband and his family members again started cruelty with the

petitioner-wife and demanded Rs.1 lac and threw her out of the

(Downloaded on 16/01/2020 at 10:43:25 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-192/2018]

matrimonial home. Thereafter again a Panchayat meeting was

arranged and the petitioner-wife started living with the

respondent-husband. However, again after some time, the

respondent-husband started cruelty with the petitioner-wife after

consuming liquor and turned out the petitioner-wife out from the

matrimonial home. Thereafter, the petitioner-wife lodged a

criminal complaint against the respondent-husband at Mahila

Thana, Sriganganagar for offence under Sections 406, 498A, 323,

337 IPC. The petitioner-wife sought maintenance of Rs.50,000/-

for maintaining herself and her three minor children.

The statement of the petitioner-wife Gayatri has been

recorded as AW-1 and thereafter the statement of the respondent-

husband Harish has been recorded as NAW-1.

In her statement, the petitioner-wife has specifically deposed

that the respondent-husband is doing business of gold and silver.

He also gave money on interest to the people in the form of loan

and he is also doing the business of selling motorcycle and jeep.

Despite the fact, the respondent-husband is earning

sufficient money, the learned Family Court has not awarded any

maintenance in favour of the petitioner-wife and three minor

children. The learned Family Court has held that a mediation

proceeding was held between the parties only on 16.05.2017 and

after conciliation the petitioner-wife was sent with the respondent-

husband. Thereafter on 09.09.2017 again the husband and wife

quarreled. The respondent-husband informed the Court that he

tried to talk to petitioner-wife but she refused to talk with him.

Thereafter the petitioner-wife started living with her parents.

The learned Family Court has held that the petitioner-wife

herself does not want to live with the respondent-husband and

(Downloaded on 16/01/2020 at 10:43:25 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-192/2018]

accordingly rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In

the opinion of this Court, the findings given by the learned Family

Court are baseless and deserve to be set aside.

In the result, the present revision petition is allowed. The

order impugned dated 15.01.2018 is set aside. The matter is

remanded back to the learned Family Court with the direction to

decide the same afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to

both the parties in accordance with law preferably within a period

of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

Court.

The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
84-MS/-

(Downloaded on 16/01/2020 at 10:43:25 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)