Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 68 (RAJ)

Arif Hussain v. Ajra Bano

2011-01-10

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner Arif Hussain s/o Tahir Hussain, r/o 45, Ramdwara Chowk, Bhupalwari, Udaipur against the Order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 462/2006, whereby he allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code and granted maintenance of Rs. 700/- to respondent No. 2 from the date of Order and Rs. 400/- from 22.07.2006 to 24.11.2009. 2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revision petition are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner alleging inter alia that respondent No. 1 was married to the petitioner on 14.02.1999. Out of the wedlock three daughters, namely, Nosin, Aafreen and Ms. Najneen were born. It was alleged that after marriage the petitioner started harassing and humiliating on demand of more dowry and on account of non-fulfilment of the said demand she was turned out of the house. Further it was alleged that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of iron almirah and cooler etc. and is earning around Rs. 8,000/- per month. It was alleged that respondents have no source of income, therefore, a sum of Rs. 3500/- be awarded to the respondents. 3. In reply to the application filed by the petitioner it was staled that the he had not made any demand of dowry and had not harassed the respondent No. 1 for the said demand. The petitioner further alleged that respondent No. 1 had filed FIR for an offence under Section 498A Indian Penal Code, in which the police, after thorough investigation filed FR in the matter. He had also filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights. It was also alleged that respondent No.1 herself had left the house of the petitioner of her own accord. It was further stated that her two daughters are living with the petitioner and he has also given customary divorce to respondent No.1on 27.09.09. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, vide Order dated 25.11.2009, allowed the application filed the responder-and granted maintenance to respondent No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 700/-. Being aggrieved by the above Order dated 25.11.2009, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 5. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, vide Order dated 25.11.2009, allowed the application filed the responder-and granted maintenance to respondent No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 700/-. Being aggrieved by the above Order dated 25.11.2009, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person and a labourer by profession and is earning only Rs. 70/- per day and he has to maintain his two daughters and mother and he is having no income from rent as alleged by the respondents. He further contends that the respondent No. 1is a working women and she has sufficient income to maintain herself and the daughter living with her. He contends that the learned Family Court has failed to consider all the aspects of the matter and passed the impugned Order and thus, committed a serious error, which requires interference by this Court. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment of the Family Court. The learned Family Court has passed the impugned Order giving detailed reasons and while rejecting the maintenance application of the respondent No. l, wife of the petitioner, allowed the application of the daughter of the petitioner directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 700/- per month to the respondent No. 2 from the date of the Order and Rs. 400/- per month from 22.07.2006 to 24.11.2009. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the Order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper and I do not find any impropriety, illegality or perversity therein which may require interference of this Court. In view' of above, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed at admission stage.Revision Petition Dismissed. *******