Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1871 (RAJ)

Sandeep Dass v. Namita Dass

2001-12-03

HARBANS LAL

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Judge,Family Court, Kota in Criminal Misc. Case No. 189/99 whereby the application of the non- petitioner/ applicant under Section 125 Cr.RC. was accepted and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of maintenance of Rs. 500/- each to the non-petitioners no.1 and 2. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the non-petitioners filed an application on 23.3.99 under Section 125 Cr.PC. before the learned lower court pleading therein that the non-petitioner no.1 was married with the petitioner and soon after marriage, he started torturing her and subjecting her to cruelty and beating by making demand of dowry whereupon she lodged a criminal case for an offence under Section 498-A I.RC. which is pending in the Court. She was ultimately turned out of the house on 25.1.99. She further alleged that her husband is earning Rs. 6000/- per month from his service a Accountant in the Railway Department and she was to means of livelihood. She claimed maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month. After hearing the parties, the learned lower court passed the impugned order, against which this revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the non-petitioner wife is unreasonably keeping away from the company of the petitioner. He was and is always ready and willing to keep her with him but she is insisting that she would not live with him along with his mother. He took me through the judgment of learned lower court particularly the decision on issue no.2 and tried to show that the non- petitioner has admitted that she was ready and willing to reside with her husband and she categorically refused to live with her mother. He has, therefore, argued that she is not entitled to any maintenance. 4. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners has argued that the learned lower court has come to a clear finding that the applicant has neglected and refused to maintain her. He has also urged that the petitioner has levelled the allegation against her character that she has illicit relations with her brother which by itself is sufficient reason for her to live separately from her husband. He has also urged that the petitioner has levelled the allegation against her character that she has illicit relations with her brother which by itself is sufficient reason for her to live separately from her husband. He has also contended that the applicant has failed to come to look after her and their newly born baby at the time of delivery inspite of intimation about the same. He has also pointed out that this court ought not to interfere in the order of the learned lower court granting maintenance as there is no illegality or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction and this revision petition should be dismissed with costs. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. It is an admitted fact that the non-petitioner no.1 is the wedded wife of the petitioner and the petitioner is employed in the Railway Department wherefrom he is earning, around Rs.6,000/- per month and the non-petitioner no.1 is not engaged in any gainful employment and has no other source of income of her own. it is also an admitted fact that she has given birth to a male child out of this wedlock and she is residing separately. The efforts made by her parents and a social organisation to unite them have also failed. The learned lower court after detailed and analytical discussion of the rival submissions and evidence of the parties has come to the conclusion that the non-petitioner no.1 has been forced to live separately from her husband and the petitioner is wilfully neglecting and unjustifiably refusing to maintain his wife and their only son. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got employment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father and he is bound to maintain his mother. He cannot leave her in lurch and cannot live separately with his wife and child. This contention cannot be accepted because even if it is not possible to keep his wife and mother together with him, he is duty bound to maintain his wife and child. The amount awarded by the learned lower court also does not appear to be in any way excessive looking to the present high cost of living. This contention cannot be accepted because even if it is not possible to keep his wife and mother together with him, he is duty bound to maintain his wife and child. The amount awarded by the learned lower court also does not appear to be in any way excessive looking to the present high cost of living. It cannot be said that in passing the impugned order, the learned lower court has exceeded its jurisdiction or the order is otherwise improper for unjust so as to call to interference by this court. 6. In this view of the matter, there is no valid and cogent reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned lower court and this revision petition does not deserve to be admitted. 7. Accordingly, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******