Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 65 (RAJ)

Mangi Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2013-01-10

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.4.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur whereby while allowing the petitioner's application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the learned Court has directed the respondent no. 2 to make payment of the maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month. 2. Aggrieved by the meager amount of maintenance the instant petition has been filed seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned as well as the record. The petitioner has specifically come with a case that the respondent turned her out of house and has remarried with one Durga Devi. She has exhibited certain documents pertaining to the sale of the respondent's agricultural land and the total sale amount has been mentioned therein to be about Rs. 52 lacs. The petitioner has specifically alleged that the respondent is having substantial interest income from the said sale amount. The petitioner's evidence has not been controverted by the respondent as he did not appear before the trial court despite service. In the instant miscellaneous petition also the respondent has not put in appearance, The petitioner has filed copies of certain documents pertaining to the prosecution of the respondent under Section 494 Cr.P.C. One of the document is an affidavit filed by the respondent before this Court in Misc. Petition No. 80/2007 wherein the respondent has admitted that he is married to Durga Devi. He has also mentioned that the petitioner was married to him but has left him about 30-32 years ago. 4. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the fact of the petitioner being a married wife of the respondent is admitted in this case. The fact regarding the respondent having married with another lady is also admitted. The respondent has not disputed his income in the trial court. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that the respondent is not maintaining her and she is not able to maintain herself. She prayed for a maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month but was granted only Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance Under these circumstances, the amount of maintenance which has been awarded to the petitioner in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. 5. Accordingly, the misc. She prayed for a maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month but was granted only Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance Under these circumstances, the amount of maintenance which has been awarded to the petitioner in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. 5. Accordingly, the misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 25.4.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur is modified to the extent that now the respondent no. 2 shall make payment of the monthly maintenance to the petitioner @ Rs. 7,000/- per month from the date of order of this Court. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith. The learned trial court shall enforce the order of maintenance immediately and shall also enforce the recovery of the due arrears of maintenance amount from the respondent no. 2 under the impugned order.Petition allowed. *******