Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1344 (RAJ)

Sugani v. State of Rajasthan

2013-07-24

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bhilwara in revision whereby the learned Revisional Court accepted the Revision No. 35/2009 filed by the respondent No. 2 and reversed the order dated 21.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mand algarh, District Bhilwara in Case No. 121/2007, whereby the learned AC.J.M., Mandalgarh had awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner @ Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 16.4.2007. 2. Succinctly stated that facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Mandalgarh. Notice was issued to the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 took a plea in his reply that he was married to the petitioner in the childhood but the petitioner never came to his house for performing her matrimonial obligations and raised the objection that as the petitioner had neglected to perform her matrimonial obligations, she was not entitled to claim any maintenance. 3. The learned Magistrate conducted an enquiry under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The statements of the petitioner's witnesses as well as the respondent No. 2's witnesses were recorded and thereafter, the learned Magistrate proceeded to accept the application filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate took note of the fact that Badri, the respondent No. 2's witness admitted in his cross-examination that Sugani used to come to her matrimonial home and used to go to the agricultural field etc. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate held that the respondent No. 2 had neglected lo maintain his wife and as such, he was ordered to pay maintenance to the petitioner @ Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 16.4.2007. The respondent No. 2 challenged the said order by way of a revision and the learned Revisional Court observed that the petitioner had never performed her matrimonial obligations after being married with the respondent No. 2 in her childhood and as such, she was not entitled to claim any maintenance from the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 challenged the said order by way of a revision and the learned Revisional Court observed that the petitioner had never performed her matrimonial obligations after being married with the respondent No. 2 in her childhood and as such, she was not entitled to claim any maintenance from the respondent No. 2. The learned Revisional Court ultimately allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 and set aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of the petitioner. Now the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition challenging the order passed by the learned Revisional Court. 4. Notice of the instant misc. petition was issued to the respondent No. 2 but none has put in appearance on his behalf despite service of the notice. 5. Shri Rajendra Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2's own witnesses admitted that the petitioner used to come to the matrimonial home and also went to the agricultural fields for doing the farming jobs. Learned counsel thus contends that as the petitioner's case that she had been neglected by the respondent was admitted by the respondent No. 2's own witnesses, therefore, there could not have been any justification for the learned Revisional Court to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned trial judge. Learned counsel referred to the statement of Badri Lal NAW-2 and contends that Badri Lal clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the petitioner used to come to matrimonial home and stayed there for 10-15 days and also went to the agricultural field for performing the framing duties. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the order passed by the learned Revisional Court being absolutely illegal and having been passed in total ignorance of the material available on record, deserves to be quashed. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the order impugned. 7. The learned Magistrate whilst granting maintenance to the petitioner appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 2's own witness Badri Lal agreed that the petitioner used to come to the matrimonial home and performed her duties. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge that the respondent No. 2 neglected to maintain the petitioner was based on an appropriate appreciation of the evidence. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge that the respondent No. 2 neglected to maintain the petitioner was based on an appropriate appreciation of the evidence. On going through the evidence of the petitioner, it becomes apparent that She petitioner was not given such suggestion that after her marriage with the respondent No. 2 in the childhood, she never went to the matrimonial home for performing her obligations. On the other hand, the specific suggestion put lo the petitioner was as to whether she was ready to perform her matrimonial obligations on which she replied that if Uda did not maltreat her, she was ready to go back to the husband's home for performing her matrimonial obligations. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that when the respondent No. 2 did not even give a suggestion to the petitioner in her cross-examination regarding the petitioner never having gone to her matrimonial home for performing her obligations then, the conclusion drawn by the learned Revisional Court that after the marriage of the parties in the childhood, the wife i.e. the petitioner herein never went to the husband's house for performing her matrimonial obligations is without any basis whatsoever; In this view of the matter, the Revisional Courts order whereby the order passed by the trial Court granting maintenance to the petitioner was reversed is absolutely illegal and contrary to the material available on record. 8. Resultantly, the misc. petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bhilwara in Revision No. 35/2009 is hereby quashed and the order dated 21.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara is restored.Stay petition is also disposed of.Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.Petition allowed. *******