Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1903 (RAJ)

Ashok Beniwal v. Smt. Rameshwari Devi

2014-11-26

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 13.9.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, Camp Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.22/2013 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.6.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in pending proceedings preferred on behalf of respondent under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005') has been dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month as interim measure to the respondent and also directed that the petitioner will allow the respondent and her son to live in house No.730, Sector No.16-17, Hisar, Haryana with all dignity. 2. The appellate court vide impugned order dated 13.9.2013 has affirmed the said order with direction to the petitioner to provide safe residence in house No.730, Sector No.16-17, Hisar, Haryana to the respondent and also issued a direction that he will not harass her in any manner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the directions given by the trial court, the petitioner is regularly paying maintenance to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondent. The respondent, however, has submitted that the direction regarding allowing the respondent to live in house No.730, Sector No.16-17, Hisar, Haryana cannot be complied with because the said house is already fallen into the share of his mother and brother pursuant to decree passed by the civil court on 18.5.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the direction given by the appellate court as well as trial court of allowing the respondent to live in the above mentioned house of Hissar, Haryana, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. The above argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was taken into consideration by the appellate court and it is observed that the said fact has not been mentioned by the petitioner in his reply filed before the trial court which was filed on 6.6.2013. 4. The above argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was taken into consideration by the appellate court and it is observed that the said fact has not been mentioned by the petitioner in his reply filed before the trial court which was filed on 6.6.2013. It is also observed by the appellate court that the notice of the said appeal issued to the petitioner was also served upon him at the house No.730, Sector No.16-17, Hisar, Haryana and, therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be believed that the petitioner is not residing in this house and residing in another house at Hisar, Haryana. The appellate court has also observed that the decree of the civil court in respect of the house in question is passed on the basis of agreed written statement of the petitioner wherein he has voluntarily surrendered the house in favour of his mother and brother and the effect of the said decree will be taken into consideration at the time of final decision of proceedings. 5. After going through the impugned order passed by the appellate court, this Court is of the opinion that the appellate court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order because the petitioner has not mentioned the fact about the decree of the civil court in respect of the house No.730, Sector No.16-17, Hisar, Haryana in his reply before the trial court and the summons of the appeal has also been served upon the petitioner at the same house. The decree of the civil court is based on an agreement and effect of the same can be taken into consideration by the trial court while passing final order in the proceedings under Section 23 of the Act of 2005.In view of above, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******