Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 907 (RAJ)

Ajay Kumar Nigam v. Rashmi Nigam

2010-04-26

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2010
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By filing this criminal revision Petition, the petition has challenged the judgment and order dated 7.1.2010 (Annex. 1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kota in criminal case No. 450/2008. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent got married on 7.3.2003 at Kota as per Hindu Rites and the parents of the respondent gave dowry as per their status but after some time the petitioner started to harass and tease the respondent. Upon this the petitioner filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kota. The learned Judge Family Court, Kota after hearing vide order dated 7.1.2010 directed the present petitioner to make payment of maintenance as Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 7.1.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kota has preferred instant criminal revision petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent submits that the petitioner is a diabetic patient from 2004 to till today and he is dependent on his parents. The petitioner is also not having any source of income as he is unemployed. The respondent does not want to reside with the petitioner and the respondent deprived the petitioner from his conjugal rights. Thus, the order dated 7.1.2010 has been passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kota without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the material made available to him. 6. E-contra learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Judge, Family Court, Kota has passed the order impugned after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the material made available to him. He submits that the petitioner started to tease the petitioner on account of not giving dowry by the parents of the respondent, which is clear from the material available on record. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the order dated 7.1.2010 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Kota. 7. A bare perusal of the facts of the facts of the case would reveal that the learned Judge, Family Court, Kota has rightly passed the order dt. 7.1.2010 and it has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the same. 8. In the result, this criminal revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected. 7. A bare perusal of the facts of the facts of the case would reveal that the learned Judge, Family Court, Kota has rightly passed the order dt. 7.1.2010 and it has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the same. 8. In the result, this criminal revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected. Stay order 9. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application also stands rejected.