Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2387 (RAJ)

Rupa @ Nani v. Kanhaya Lal

2006-08-01

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 182 CrPC., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.06.2005 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh (for short the revisional Court hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No. 11/2005, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 212.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pratapgarh (for short the trial Court hereinafter) was dismissed. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order of the revisional Court as well as of the trial Court. I have also carefully gone through the record of the trial Court. 3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 125, CrPC, before the trial Court seeking monthly allowance of maintenance. The Non-petitioner No. 1 filed a reply and denied the allegation; however he admitted to the extent that the petitioner was married to him and from their wedlock there are as many as four issues and all the issues have been residing with him. It is not the case of the petitioner that any of the issues born out of the wedlock are living with her. The non-petitioner hasband and came with a specific plea that without any reasonable and probable cause, the petitioner wife voluntarily deserted him and started living with one Mohanlal. 4. I have carefully gone through the statements of witnesses. 5. According to the petitioner, ten years before she was turned out of her matrimonial home by the non-petitioner husband. She has not filed any report with regard to turning her out from the matrimonial home or harassing her, however, after ten years, she has filed an application seeking maintenance. In her statement, the petitioner categorically stated that all the four issues born out of the wedlock are living with the Non-petitioner No. 1 and it is the Non-petitioner No. 1 who is maintaining them. One of the daughter born out of the wedlock got married and expenses were borne by the Non-petitioner No. 1. She categorically stated that even if the Non-petitioner No. 1 is prepared to keep her, she does not want to live with him. From the statement, it appears that there was some Panchayat wherein according to Non-petitioner No. 1, the petitioner agreed to continue to live with Mohanlal and refused to live with the Non-petitioner No. 1. She categorically stated that even if the Non-petitioner No. 1 is prepared to keep her, she does not want to live with him. From the statement, it appears that there was some Panchayat wherein according to Non-petitioner No. 1, the petitioner agreed to continue to live with Mohanlal and refused to live with the Non-petitioner No. 1. The petitioner also admitted that she has not been residing with her parents. This supports the case of the Non-petitioner No. 1 that the petitioner without any reasonable and probable cause deserted the Non-petitioner No. 1 and started living with one Mohanlal. The petitioner also admitted that she is maintaining herself by undertaking work of labour by which she is earning Rs. 40/-or Rs. 20/- per day. Be that as it may. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that it was the petitioner who without any reasonable and probable cause deserted the Non-petitioner No. 1 and refused to live with him. 6. In Deb Narayan Halder vs. Anushree Halder (Smt.), 2004 SCC (Cri) 164, Honble Supreme Court held that wife having left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground is not entitled to the grant of maintenance. 7. Keeping in view of the evidence on record, in my view, both the Courts below rightly concluded that it was the petitioner who deserted the Non-petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of any Court. 8. The petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed stay petition also stands dismissed.