Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 574 (RAJ)

Babulal alias Mangilal v. Bhoori Bai

2005-02-21

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision petition under Sec. 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Sec. 397 CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Judgment and order dated 20.12.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur (for short, "the Family Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 744 of 1999, whereby the Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondents under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/-to respondent No. 1 Smt. Bhoori Bai; Rs. 400/-to respondent No. 2 Miss Jasoda; Rs. 350/-to respondent No. 3 Miss Yasoda and Rs. 300/-to Miss Varsha. 2. The facts, relevant and necessary for disposal of this criminal revision, in a nut shell, are that respondents filed an application under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging therein that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 27.4.1990 as per Hindu customs and rites and out of this wed-lock, three daughters were born to her from the loin of the petitioner. It has been alleged by the respondent-wife that the petitioner-husband started harassing and ill-treating her by making a demand of a sum of Rs. 50,000/-and on non-fulfilment of this demand and threatened her that in case his demand is not fulfilled, he would contract second marriage and ultimately on 17.1999, the petitioner contracted second marriage with one Smt. Hudi D/o. Nathu Keer. It has further been alleged that when her youngest daughter Miss Varsha was in the womb, the petitioner, after giving beatings, turned her out of her matrimonial home and since then she is living with her parents. When her father sent a message to take her back, the petitioner refused to do so and told that he had contracted `Nata" marriage and would not keep the respondent No. 1 with him. It has further been stated that she has no independent source of income and the economic condition of her father is also not good; whereas the petitioner has one track, one saw machines and eight Bighas of irrigated land apart from milk-business and his monthly income is Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner filed reply to the application under Sec. 125 of the Code and denied the allegations of demand of Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner filed reply to the application under Sec. 125 of the Code and denied the allegations of demand of Rs. 50,000/- and contracting "Nata" marriage; though in the reconciliation proceedings which took place on 112.1999 before the Family Court, the petitioner voluntarily admitted that he had contracted "Nata" marriage with Smt. Hudi D/o. Nathu Keer. He came with the case that the agricultural land belongs to his grand-father Heeraji and the truck belongs to his uncle Kishan Lal. He stated that he is driver of the said truck and gets Rs. 1,500/-per month as salary. Both the parties led evidence. The Family Court, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the application and awarded the total maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondents. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties; perused the impugned Judgment and order as also the record of the case. 4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Family Court has fell in error in holding the petitioner as the owner of the truck on the basis of the power of attorney. He has submitted that the petitioner is only a truck driver and not the owner thereof . 5. The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner earns Rs. 2,000/-per month from the saw machine; Rs. 1,000/-per month from the agricultural land and Rs. 5,000/-per month from the truck. Exhibit 1 on record is the report of the Patwari showing that the saw machine is installed at the Aaraji No. 639 which belongs to the petitioner. Likewise, from the Jamabandi Exh. 2, it is clear that the petitioner is having 1/9th share in Khasra Nos. 637, 639, 640 to 462 and 644. The bond Exh. 4 clearly shows that the petitioner had shown himself to be the power of attorney holder of truck No. RRY 8942 and also stated that he is having one saw machine and agricultural land. 6. Even assuming the petitioner to be a truck driver, the monthly (sic-income) of the petitioner, even as a truck driver cannot be said to be less than Rs. 5,000/-as it is not easily gulpable that a driver is paid only a sum of Rs. 1,500/-per month as salary. 6. Even assuming the petitioner to be a truck driver, the monthly (sic-income) of the petitioner, even as a truck driver cannot be said to be less than Rs. 5,000/-as it is not easily gulpable that a driver is paid only a sum of Rs. 1,500/-per month as salary. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is having 1/9th share in the irrigated agricultural land which is established from Exh. 2 and this fact has not been disputed even by the petitioner. The report of the Patwari Exh. 1 also shows that the petitioner is having income from the saw machine. In this view of the matter, awarding maintenance of Rs. 1,500/-per month to all the respondents cannot be said to be illegal, erroneous or perverse. The trial Court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for awarding the aforesaid amount of maintenance and after careful perusal of the impugned Judgment and the record of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Family Court. 7. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed accordingly. The stay petition also stands disposed of .