Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2665 (RAJ)

Veer Singh Chouhan v. Sharmila

2008-12-08

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Hon ble SHARMA, J.—By filing instant criminal revision the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the judge, Family Court, Ajmer in case No.171/2005 by which he allowed the application filed by the respondents under section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs.1200/- to her and Rs.800/- to her son Nishu. 2. Brief facts of the case are that non-petitioner No.1 filed and application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Ajmer stating therein the marriage between the petitioner and non-petitioner No.1 solemnized on 26.11.2001 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. From the wedlock non-petitioner No.2 gave a birth to a male child (non-petitioner No.2). She further stated in the application that she had seen the petitioner in suspicious circumstances with his Bhabhi, for this she made a complaint to the mother-in-law but the petitioner continued to live in adultery, the result of which the non-petitioner No.1 was treated with cruelty. She was also given beaten mercilessly on 23.12.2003. She prayed to make payment of Rs.5500/0- as maintenance amount. 3. The petitioner filed reply to the said application wherein the allegations leveled by the non-petitioner No.1 were specifically denied. The allegations of adultery has also been specifically denied. 4. The Judge, Family Court, Ajmer after hearing allowed the application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent and directed to make payment of Rs.1200/- to her (non-petitioner No.1) and Rs.800/- to her son Nishu (non-petitioner No.2) vide order dated 10.10.2007. 5. The Petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer, has preferred instant revision petition before this Court. 6. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 7. Mr. H.L. Saini, counsel for the petitioner submits that the Judge, Family Court has passed the order impugned without taking into consideration the fact that the respondent No.1, has not taken any decree of divorce from petitioner and the same fact has been admitted by her in the court below. The respondent is in habit of lodging false complaint against the petitioner earlier also. The petitioner is not having any source of permanent income as he is doing Seva Pooja in a very small temple in his house in his village. The respondent is in habit of lodging false complaint against the petitioner earlier also. The petitioner is not having any source of permanent income as he is doing Seva Pooja in a very small temple in his house in his village. Thus, the order impugned passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer, be quashed and set-aside. 8. Mr. Kapil Mathur, counsel for the respondents submits that the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer has passed the order impugned after taking into the material facts and it has not committed any illegality and irregularity in passing the same. 9. A bare perusal of the facts of the case clearly reveal that the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer has not gone through the factual metrix of the case and erred in passing the order impugned. 10. In the result, the criminal revision filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Ajmer in case No.171/2005 is quashed and set-aside and remanded to the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer. The Judge, Family Court, is directed to re-hear both the parties in the matter and decide the matter afresh within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt a certified copy of this judgment. Stay Order 11. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application also stands rejected.