Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2487 (RAJ)

Prithvi Raj v. Kamlesh

2008-11-11

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Hon ble SHARMA, J.—By filing instant criminal revision the petitioner has challenged the Judgment dated 5.4.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Kota in case No. 1026/2002, by which it allowed the application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000/- p.m. to the respondent. (2). Brief fact of the case are that respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court stating therein that she entered into Nata Marriage on 27.6.1998 with the petitioner and lived with him for two years. Thereafter, she was deserted and since then she has been living with her parent in the parental house and she demanded payment of Rs. 1000/- p.m. towards maintenance. (3). The petitioner filed a detailed reply controverted the facts mentioned by the respondent. (4). The respondent in support of her case produced as many as three witnesses and petitioner also produced three witnesses. (5). The Family Court after hearing passed the Judgment dated 5.4.2008 by which he directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1000/- per month to the respondent. (6). The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 5.4.2008 has preferred instant revision petition before this Court. (7). Mr. N.U. Qazi, counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court has failed to consider that the is any material on record to show that respondent was ever legally married with the petitioner. The judgment dated 5.4.2008 passed by the Family Court is legally not well founded and has no legs to stand as respondent is undergoing treatment for mental disease or Psychological problems. The statement made by such person is without any proof and has no bearing in the eye of law. The respondent who claims to be the Nata wife of the petitioner never was called upon to prove her claim. As per version of respondent, she has stated that her earlier husband is Mahavir S/o Sita Ram who did not divorce her as such she is legally wife of Mahavir s/o Sita Ram who did not divorce her as such she is legally wife of Mahavir S/o Sita Ram. Her earlier husband was not allowed to be produced before the Court. If the respondent does not have the status of wife she has not locus standi to claim maintenance from the petitioner. Her earlier husband was not allowed to be produced before the Court. If the respondent does not have the status of wife she has not locus standi to claim maintenance from the petitioner. Lastly, he submits that the Family Court be directed to get the statements of Mahavir and Mukut Bihari recorded on a fixed date and thereafter, the Family Court be directed to decide the matter afresh. (8). Per Contra Mr. R. Kasliwal, controverted the aforesaid submissions and submitted that the Family Court has rightly passed the impugned Judgment dated 5.4.2008. (9). I have heard counsel appearing for both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. (10). A bare perusal of the facts of the case clearly reveals that in the interest of justice the statements of Mahavir and Mukut Bihari are relevant for the Family Court to come to a right conclusion. (11). In my view, the judgment dated 5.4.2008 passed by the Family Court needs interference of this Court. (12). In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the Judgment dated 5.4.2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Kota in Criminal Case No. 1026/02 is quashed and set-aside but at the same time I direct the petitioner to produce Mahavir and Mukut Bihari on 1.12.2008 before the Family Court, Kota for getting their statements recorded. The Family Court, Kota is directed to record the statements of Mahavir and Mukut Bihari on the very same day and decide the same afresh after recording the statements of Mahavir and Mukut Bihari.