Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 474 (RAJ)

Ramniwas v. Shakuntala Devi

2016-04-04

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2016
ORDER : Prakash Gupta, J. Instant Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 13.01.2016 and 25.07.2015 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kishangarh, Ajmer whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 25.07.2015 passed by the learned trial Court. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this Criminal Revision Petition are that the non-petitioners/complainants filed an application under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner wherein, they alleged that non petitioner No. 1 was married with the petitioner on 20.08.1984 and out of their wedlock one son Lokesh and one daughter non-petitioner No. 2 was born. It is alleged that the last few months, the petitioner started behaviouring differently and non-petitioner was subjected to cruelty at the hand of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner stopped given maintenance amount to non-petitioners. In these S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 289/2016 Ramniwas v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi & Ors. circumstances, the non-petitioners find difficulties for survival. The petitioner is working in Police Department on the post of ASI and he earns about Rs. 45,000/--Rs. 50,000/- per month as salary but the petitioner has not been given maintenance amount to the non-petitioners for the last few months. The petitioner is directed to give at least Rs. 25,000/- per month for the non petitioners for their maintenance and education. 4. No reply was filed by the petitioner to the application, the trial Court has allowed the application and directed to the petitioner to pay Rs. 3500/- per month to the non petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 3500/- to the non petitioner as the amount of maintenance and education. Having aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.07.2015, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Court and the same was dismissed on 13.01.2016 hence, this revision. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-petitioners have been living separately from the company of the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-petitioners have been living separately from the company of the petitioner. The non petitioners are living in the house which was actually owned by the petitioner's income, the petitioner had owned the house and got registered in the name of non-petitioner No. 1, expelled the petitioner form the house forcible and in these circumstances, the petitioner started living separately. It is submitted that no specific allegation is levelled against the petitioner in the petition. The petitioner has not committed any cruelty towards the non-petitioners. It is also submitted that both the Courts below did not try to settled the dispute S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 289/2016 Ramniwas v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi & Ors. between the parties through Mediation Center as required by Section 14 of the Act. In these circumstances, the order passed by both the courts below are perverse and legally not sustainable and also contrary to the material available on record. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. Indisputably, the non-petitioners have not filed any reply to the application. The allegations levelled in the application are stand uncontroverted, it is an admitted fact that non-petitioners are living separately and it is specifically alleged in the application that the non-petitioners are subjected to cruelty. 8. So far as this fact is concerned that the house in which the non-petitioners are residing is of the ownership of the petitioner. This fact has never been raised before the learned trial Court and admittedly, no reply has been filed by the petitioner. It is well settled preposition of law that revisional jurisdiction is very limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another 2012 (9) SCC 460 . 9. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality/impropriety or incorrectness in the order impugned hence, the present revision petition devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.