Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1511 (RAJ)

Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-19

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.9.2000 passed by Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur (for short 'the family Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 79 of 1997 whereby the Family Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of the Code seeking enhancement of maintenance. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned. 3. The petitioner earlier filed an application under Section 125 of the Code seeking maintenance in the year 1978 being Criminal Misc. Case No. 150 of 1978, which came to be decided on 19.6.1979 and petitioner was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 140/- per momn. Apart from the petitioner, her daughter Asha Devi was also granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. The order granting maintenance to Asha Devi was challenged by Non-Petitioner No. 2 before this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 265 of 1981. The order dated 19.61979 to the extent of grant of maintenance in favour of Asha Kumari at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month was set aside by this Court. From perusal of the order passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 265 of 1981 reported in 1988 (1) WLN 354, it appears that earlier decree for judicial separation in Hindu Marriage Case No. 67 of 1970 was passed on 13.4.1972 by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Akola. The very Court passed the decree dated 2.4.1979 in the divorce petition No. 96 of 1978. The court while passing the divorce decree, held that Non-Petitioner No. 2 had no cohabitation with the petitioner since their marriage, and the child is not that of Non-Petitioner No. 2. While deciding issue No. 4 therein, the Court held that petitioner had sexual intercourse with any other person other than her husband Non-Petitioner No. 2. Before the Family Court, the petitioner has failed to prove the income of Non-Petitioner No. 2. She only stated that her husband might be earning Rs. 4000/- per month. On the contrary, Non-Petitioner No. 2 has produced various documents before the Family Court including the document of his treatment. He has been suffering from high blood pressure and is also an old man. She only stated that her husband might be earning Rs. 4000/- per month. On the contrary, Non-Petitioner No. 2 has produced various documents before the Family Court including the document of his treatment. He has been suffering from high blood pressure and is also an old man. Relying on the evidence of Non-Petitioner No. 2 and the fact that the burden was on the petitioner to establish the income of Non-Petitioner No. 2, which the petitioner failed to establish, the Family Court, dismissed the application. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that by efflux of time reasonable sum increased in the income of Non-Petitioner No. 2 cannot be ruled out though Non-Petitioner No. 2 himself is an old man and is a patient of high blood pressure. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and proper to enhance the maintenance from Rs. 140/- to Rs. 200/- per month from the date of this order. 5. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Order of Trial Court dated 6.9.2000 is modified and the maintenance awarded by the Family COurt is enhanced from Rs. 140/- to Rs. 200/- per month. The enhanced amount shall be payable from the date of this order.Revision partly allowed. *******