Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 483 (RAJ)

Manish Gupta @ Monu Gupta v. Dipika Dhani

2016-04-05

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2016
ORDER : Prakash Gupta, J. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.1.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer whereby the application filed by applicant respondent wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the applicant respondent from the date of institution of application i.e. with effect from 26.5.2014. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the respondent wife filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance wherein it is alleged that the marriage between the parties was solemnised as per the Hindu Religious Rites and Customs on 19th January, 2013 at Gohana, Haryana. It is stated in the application that the petitioner had demanded rupees twenty lac. Other allegations regarding harassment have also been alleged in the application. It is stated that the petitioner husband did not consumate the marriage because he is impotent. It is also alleged that she was beaten and was forced to leave her matrimonial house on 12th March, 2012 and her 'stridhan' was taken into custody by her inlaws. 3. On 23.12.2015, the non-petitioner did not appear in the trial court and hence, ex parte proceedings were initiated against him. 4. She also alleged that though she is educated yet she is unemployed. She has no source of livelihood whereas the non-applicant has a floor mill at Panipat and he also deals in the business of supply of iron goods. He also does the business of property dealing and from all sources, he earns Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. He also owns a house measuring 600 sq. yards. 5. Reply to the application was filed by the petitioner and he denied the allegations levelled in the application. 6. Learned Judge, Family Court after recording statement of applicant respondent wife allowed the application as indicated above vide order dated 30th January, 2016. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no proof regarding income of the petitioner has been produced and that the maintenance granted by the court below is excessive. Respondent wife is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no proof regarding income of the petitioner has been produced and that the maintenance granted by the court below is excessive. Respondent wife is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. It reveals from the impugned order that the evidence of the applicant respondent wife remain uncontroverted as the non-applicant did not appear before the Court below at the stage of evidence of the applicant-respondent. In rebuttal also, he did not led any evidence. Moreso, he did not file any application to set aside the order dated 23.12.2015 by which ex parte proceedings were initiated against him. Even after the conclusion of the trial, he did not file any application to set aside the final order dated 30.1.2016. On the contrary he filed the instant revision petition. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 23.12.2015. It has also not been shown as to why the petitioner failed to appear in the court below on 23.12.2015. There is also no evidence on record to show that the respondent is employed in a private school and getting Rs. 15,000/- per month as salary, whereas in the evidence of the respondent wife it is proved that the petitioner is well off and his income has been proved. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the order impugned, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court so as to call for any interference by this Court. The revision petition has no merit and is, dismissed accordingly.