Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 452 (RAJ)

Jagsir Singh v. Paramjeet Kaur

2005-02-11

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, CrPC is directed against the order dated 05.01.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the revisional Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 118/2004, whereby the revisional Court allowed the revision petition filed by respondent Smt. Paramjeet Kaur against the order dated 17.02.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 97/2003, by which the trial Court awarded maintenance in favour of the respondent @ Rs. 1,000/-per month. The order awarding maintenance has been modified by the revisional Court and the revisional Court awarded maintenance in favour of the respondent @ Rs. 2,500/-per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 CrPC, i.e. 04.08.2003. Aggrieved by the order impugned of the revisional Court, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125, CrPC against the petitioner seeking maintenance, inter alia, alleging therein that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 08.04.2003. Petitioner and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry articles and, therefore, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and was turned out from the matrimonial home and as such she has been residing with her parents. It was further stated that she has no source of income and the petitioner is a young person having 25 Bighas of irrigated land and 25 Bighas of the land owned by his father is being jointly cultivated and, therefore, from the irrigated land, the annual income of the petitioner is about Rs. 3 to 3.5 lac. She claimed maintenance @ Rs. 2,500/-per month. A reply to the said application was filed by the petitioner, inter alia, alleging therein that whatever the dowry articles were given, they are with the respondent and petitioner and his parents have nothing to do with those articles. It was stated that a false case has been instituted by the respondent against the petitioner and his parents. It was further stated that the petitioner herself had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, not on account of demand of dowry but on the pretext that the petitioner is impotent. It was stated that a false case has been instituted by the respondent against the petitioner and his parents. It was further stated that the petitioner herself had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, not on account of demand of dowry but on the pretext that the petitioner is impotent. A Panchayat to this effect was held and the petitioner and his parents agreed that they will get the petitioner treated for his alleged impotency. However, it was further stated that if the respondent comes and live with the petitioner, the petitioner is prepared to bear all expenses. It was further stated that the parents of the respondent are having 25 Bighas of irrigated land and the respondent herself work in the agricultural field, more particularly, harvesting the cotton crop and, therefore, she hardly needs any maintenance as she is capable of maintaining herself . It was also stated that the land owned by the petitioner is not fertile one and it is not being cultivated for last four to five years. The petitioner is neither having any tube-well nor any tractor and the land is available to his father and his father has to maintain his mother and six sisters from the income from the land owned by him. 3. Before the trial Court, the respondent herself appeared as AW. 1 and made her statement. She also produced AW. 2 Natha Singh as a witness in support of her case. The petitioner himself appeared as NAW. 1. 4. AW. 1 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur has stated that in the marriage, her parents gave ornaments and utensils which were handed over to one Chhatra Singh and thereafter she started living with the petitioner in her in-laws house. The petitioner and her parents were not happy with the gifts and they demanded a jeep and a sum of Rs. One lac in cash on the ground that the petitioners parents incurred Rs. 8 to 10 lacs in the marriage of their daughters. Her husband (the petitioner) used to say that he had brought the petrol and would burn her. She was not being given proper meals. A Panchayat was held and thereafter the petitioner assaulted her and turned out from the matrimonial home, for which a case had been lodged against the petitioner, his parents, sisters and aunt etc. Her husband (the petitioner) used to say that he had brought the petrol and would burn her. She was not being given proper meals. A Panchayat was held and thereafter the petitioner assaulted her and turned out from the matrimonial home, for which a case had been lodged against the petitioner, his parents, sisters and aunt etc. She further stated that she has no source of income whereas the petitioner is having two Murabbas of land and a tractor and as such his annual income is about Rs. 2 to 3 lacs. She claimed maintenance @ Rs. 2,500/-per month. She admitted that her father is having one Murabba of irrigated land. She denied that the petitioner is impotent and undergone the treatment. She has stated that the petitioner may want to take her to his house but she is not prepared to live with him because he would attempt to burn her. She admitted having certain gold jewellery. She admitted that the petitioner is having six sisters and he is only the son of his parents and stated that out of his six sisters, two are unmarried. 5. AW. 2 Natha Singh is the father of respondent, who has stated that the petitioner and Nachhatra Singh and other member were not happy with the gifts and they demanded a jeep and a sum of Rs. One lac in cash. This was told to him by his brother when the respondent was being brought to her parents house. Three to four Panchayats were held. He was informed by his daughter that unless their demand is fulfilled, the members of her in-laws would continue to harass her. He stated that the respondent does not know any vocation and she is unable to maintain herself , whereas the petitioner is having two Murabbas of land of his own and a tractor and his annual income is about Rs. 3 to 4 lacs. He admitted that he himself is having one Murabba of land and a combine machine which is used for harvesting. He admitted that his annual income is about Rs. One lac. He also stated that the respondent knows preparing the food, milking, looking after the cattles and harvesting the cotton crop. He also admitted that whatever articles were given by him to his daughter are, now, lying with them. The petitioner is having 6 sisters, out of whom two are unmarried. One lac. He also stated that the respondent knows preparing the food, milking, looking after the cattles and harvesting the cotton crop. He also admitted that whatever articles were given by him to his daughter are, now, lying with them. The petitioner is having 6 sisters, out of whom two are unmarried. The petitioner, though not serving, but he undertakes the agricultural work. If the petitioner is prepared to keep the respondent, still he would not send his daughter because the petitioner may kill her. Even if he is assured by the Panchayat that no harm would be caused to his daughter still he is not prepared to send his daughter to her in-laws house. 6. As against this evidence, the petitioner himself appeared as NAW. 1 and made the statement stating therein that there was no quarrel between him and his wife, the respondent. He stated that before marriage, he suffered injuries, for which he is undergoing the treatment. He is having one Murabba of agricultural land which had been mortgaged to one Sheo Narain Bishnoi. The land was mortgaged at the time of his marriage. He is having six sisters, out of whom two are unmarried. He and his father are neither having any tractor nor tube-well and from the agricultural land, he earns merely a normal income. The tractor was sold two years before. He has stated that he is ready to bear the expenses if the respondent lives with him. He has no individual income and he is also undergoing medical treatment. However, he has failed to produce any document showing mortgage of the land to Sheo Narain Bishnoi. He has expressed his inability to pay Rs. 2,500/-per month as maintenance to the denied the respondent. He stated that neither he nor his parents made any demand of jeep or a sum of Rs. One lac and on non-fulfilment thereof ever assaulted to the respondent. He expressed his desire to keep the respondent and live with her as husband and wife. 7. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, found the respondent entitled for the maintenance and held that the petitioner is under the obligation to maintain the respondent. He expressed his desire to keep the respondent and live with her as husband and wife. 7. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties, found the respondent entitled for the maintenance and held that the petitioner is under the obligation to maintain the respondent. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and holding him capable of earning and his obligation to maintain his wife, the respondent, the trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 125, CrPC and awarded maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/-per month from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 04.08.2003. 8. Aggrieved by the inadequate amount of maintenance awarded by the trial Court, the respondent filed the aforesaid revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The revisional Court, without noticing the evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion in the very beginning of the impugned order that keeping in view the admission made by the petitioner before the trial Court, awarding maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/-cannot be justified and the revisional Court was of the view that the revision petition filed by the respondent is liable to be accepted and sum of Rs. 2,500/-per month would be a just and proper amount to be awarded as maintenance in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner. After coming to this conclusion, the revisional Court noticed that the petitioner has admitted that he and his father are having 25 Bighas of land each, and they are living jointly. The revisional Court also noticed that in the statement, the petitioner stated that 30 Bighas of land had been mortgaged to Sheo Narain Bishnoi but since no evidence in support of the alleged mortgage had been produced, therefore, the revisional Court did not believe the version of the petitionr regarding the mortgage. The revisional Court also noticed that all the six sisters of the petitioner have been married and, therefore, keeping in view the possible income of the petitioner, the revisional Court held that the maintenance @ Rs. 2,500/-per month would not be unjust. The revisional Court also noticed that the father of the respondent is having 25 Bighas of land but noticing that the respondent herself is having no independent source of income, therefore, revisional Court was of the view that the trial Court has not assigned adequate reasons while awarding maintenance @ Rs. 2,500/-per month would not be unjust. The revisional Court also noticed that the father of the respondent is having 25 Bighas of land but noticing that the respondent herself is having no independent source of income, therefore, revisional Court was of the view that the trial Court has not assigned adequate reasons while awarding maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/-per month only. 9. I have carefully gone through the statement of AW. 1 Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, the respondent, and AW. 2 Natha Singh as also the statement of the petitioner NAW. 1 Jagsir Singh, as discussed hereinabove. The revisional Court awarded maintenance on the basis of the possible income of the petitioner from the agricultural land. In whole of the impugned order of the revisional Court, it does not reflect that what is the monthly or annual income of the petitioner. Without determining the income of the petitioner, the revisional Court straight-way reached to a conclusion to award maintenance to the respondent @ Rs. 2,500/-per month as claimed by her. The statement of the petitioner as also his pleading i.e. the reply to the application, have not been considered at all. The revisional Court, while modifying the order of the trial Court, has not assigned any cogent and convincing reasons. From the perusal of the order impugned of the revisional Court, it appears that the revisional Court, without having noticed and discussing the pleading and evidence on record, straight-way jumped to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 2,500/-per month would be a just and adequate compensation. 10. In Deb Narayan Halder vs. Smt. Anushree Halder, 2003 CrLJ 4470 , the Honble Supreme Court held that it is well settled that the appellate or revisional Court, while setting aside the finding recorded by the Court below, must notice those findings, and if the appellate or revisional Court comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial Court are untenable, record its reasons for coming to the said conclusion. Where the findings are findings of fact it must discuss the evidence on record which justify the reversal of the findings recorded by the Court below. This is particularly so when findings recorded by the trial Court are sought to be set aside by an Appellate or Revisional Court. Where the findings are findings of fact it must discuss the evidence on record which justify the reversal of the findings recorded by the Court below. This is particularly so when findings recorded by the trial Court are sought to be set aside by an Appellate or Revisional Court. One cannot take exception to a Judgment merely on the ground of its brevity, but if the Judgment appears to by cryptic and conclusions are reached without even referring to the evidence on record or noticing the findings of the trial Court, the party aggrieved is entitled to ask for setting aside of such a Judgment . 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of law, it was legally incumbent upon the revisional Court to meet out the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court before modifying the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial Court. Without assigning any reason for enhancing the amount of maintenance and without meeting out the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court, the revisional Court enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 1,000/-to Rs. 2,500/-per month from the date of filing the application under Section 125 CrPC. While modifying the Judgment of the trial Court, it appears that the revisional Court has not examined the evidence on record and also did not meet out the reasoning given by the trial Court for granting maintenance of Rs. 1,000/-per month. In this view of the matter, the order impugned passed by the revisional Court is liable to be set aside. 12. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.01.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 118/2004 is hereby set-aside and the order dated 17.02.2004 passed by the trial Court is restored. The stay petition stands disposed of .