Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2462 (RAJ)

Babu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2011-11-16

NISHA GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 6.1.2007 whereby the respondent's application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the application has been filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself as well as for her son. A detail reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner has specifically pleaded that the respondent herself left the house of the petitioner and she is having the source of income, as such she is not entitled to maintenance, but the trial Court allowed the application and granted Rs. 800/- per month maintenance to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 400/- per month maintenance for her son. The present petitioner also preferred the revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge which was also dismissed. 3. The only contention of the present petitioner is that the Courts below have not considered the material on record. Earlier application for maintenance was presented by the respondent, which was dismissed and this. second application is barred. He has also pleaded that the respondent herself left the house of the petitioner and the respondent has filed complaint under Section 498A I.P.C. from which the petitioner has been acquitted and hence the impugned order should be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the petition is misconceived. the trial Court's order has also been assailed by way of revision and this petition in the garb of revision is not maintainable. 5. The petitioner's contention is that earlier the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the trial Court and hence this second application is barred but there is no dispute about the fact that earlier the 6. A bare perusal of the impugned orders of Courts below goes to show that the learned trial Court and revisional Court has considered the matter in detail and in right perspective. It has been specifically considered by the Courts below that the respondents is not having sufficient means to maintain her. It was proved before the Courts below that the present petitioner has contacted second marriage and hence it is reasonable for the respondent to live separately. The income of the present petitioner has also been considered. It has been specifically considered by the Courts below that the respondents is not having sufficient means to maintain her. It was proved before the Courts below that the present petitioner has contacted second marriage and hence it is reasonable for the respondent to live separately. The income of the present petitioner has also been considered. Hence looking to the concurrent findings of the Courts below and taking note of the fact that all the aspects which have been agitated here, have been considered by the Courts below and hence there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and the misc. petition is liable to be dismissed.The misc. petition is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******