ORDER : 1. The instant stay application has been preferred by the accused petitioners stating, inter alia, that they have filed criminal revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2009 by which he modified the impugned judgment dated 3.8.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar in Cr. Case No. 734/2005 and sentenced the accused petitioners as under:- U/s 498A IPC Sentenced to undergo 6 months’ Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment thereof; to further undergo 1 month’s additional Simple Imprisonment. U/s 406 IPC Sentenced to undergo 6 months’ Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment thereof; to further undergo 1 month’s additional Simple Imprisonment. Compensation in addition to fine Petitioners have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the victim/ Smt. Kanta towards compensation u/s 357A IPC. 2. Along with revision, petitioners preferred an Application No. 9/2016 for suspension of sentence which was allowed by a coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 8.1.2016 and the sentence passed against the petitioners has been suspended during pendency of the revision petition on certain stipulations and since then the petitioners are on bail. 3. Accused petitioner No. 2 - Vishwas Chand Meena is elder brother of Petitioner No. 1 – Murarilal Meena. Petitioner – Murarilal is posted as English Lecturer at G.B. Pant Institute of Technology, Okhla, Delhi (under Delhi Government) and petitioner No. 2 – Vishwas Chand Meena is Senior Manager, Union Bank of India, Service Branch at Pahadganj, Delhi. 4. The petitioners submitted that because of judgment of conviction, the petitioners may suffer disqualification and there are every chances that they may be removed from service by the authorities. Petitioner – Murarilal Meena is regularly paying maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the complainant since last so many years. If the operation of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is not stayed, then the petitioner No. 1 would be out of job and he would not be in a position to pay the complainant/respondent regular maintenance, directed by the courts. Both the courts below have seriously erred in convicting the petitioners on the basis of statements of relatives witnesses. There is no iota of evidence with regard to the allegations of demand of dowry. Both the courts below have seriously erred in convicting the petitioners on the basis of statements of relatives witnesses. There is no iota of evidence with regard to the allegations of demand of dowry. The alleged offences u/s 498A and 406 IPC are not the offences involving moral turpitude and both the impugned judgments rendered by the courts below have not attained finality. Hence, in the interest of justice, operation and effect of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.12.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem-Ka-Thana and judgment and order dated 3.8.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Neem-Ka-Thana, be stayed till disposal of the revision petition. 5. In reply, learned counsel for complainant/respondent submitted that complainant - wife is being harassed since last so many years and offence of the accused petitioners is within purview of the moral turpitude. They do not deserve in Government service against rules and regulations framed by the Government. The court would not like to interfere in pending disciplinary proceedings. Vide order dated 12.1.2012, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neek-Ka-Thana (Sikar) while allowing petition of wife u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Domestic Violence Act”) directed the accused petitioner Murarilal Meena to pay Rs.11,000/- per month as pecuniary compensation. On appeal, the same was upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem-Ka-Thana (Sikar) vide its judgment dated 18.12.2015. This court also directed on 18.12.2015 that the entire arrears of maintenance amount to be paid by husband to the wife as per order dated 12.1.2012 of the trial court, be paid by husband Murarilal Meena to wife Smt. Kanta within a period of six weeks. But till today, neither the arrears nor maintenance at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per month is being paid. Without divorce by competent court of law, the petitioner Murarilal solemnized marriage with some other lady, the complainant is being deprived from her legal rights. The accused petitioners are committing offence one after other and their act is within the purview of moral turpitude. 6. During the course of hearing, on 28.4.2016 it was directed by this court to learned counsel for the accused petitioners to file an affidavit of accused petitioner whether he has fully paid the maintenance amount to the respondent or not. The accused petitioners are committing offence one after other and their act is within the purview of moral turpitude. 6. During the course of hearing, on 28.4.2016 it was directed by this court to learned counsel for the accused petitioners to file an affidavit of accused petitioner whether he has fully paid the maintenance amount to the respondent or not. In response, petitioner Murarilal Meena submitted an affidavit dated 27.5.2016 to the effect that he has deposited all the dues with regard to maintenance to be paid in compliance of order passed against him both u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. As per his calculation, entire amount of maintenance till 11.5.2015 is paid to the complainant/ respondent and there is no due amount. If there is any error in calculation and any amount comes out due, he would pay the same. He and his brother - Vishwas Chand Meena are facing financial crisis, service of his brother has already been terminated by his employer, the Union Bank, because of instant conviction. The petitioner has been placed under suspension and authorities are going to terminate his services on the basis of conviction. 7. Complainant/respondent submitted written response dated 2.6.2016 to the affidavit dated 27.5.2016 filed by petitioner Murarilal Meena to the effect that he has stated wrong facts with regard to court proceedings and as per her calculation against the total dues of Rs.11,03,000/-, only Rs.7,80,000/- has been paid. Hence, still Rs.3,23,000/- are outstanding. Therefore, petitioner Murarilal Meena be prosecuted for filing false affidavit and he be directed to pay rest of amount of the maintenance. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Vishwas Chand Meena has already been terminated from service by Union Bank only due to the instant conviction and Murarilal Meena has been placed under suspension likely, to be terminated from service. Offences u/s 498A and 406 IPC are not of moral turpitude. If the operation of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is not stayed, the petitioner would be out of job and would not be in a position to pay regular maintenance to the complainant/respondent. The revision is likely to take time for its disposal. Petitioner is a teacher. If the conviction is not stayed, he may loss job and his family members would also suffer adverse consequences. The revision is likely to take time for its disposal. Petitioner is a teacher. If the conviction is not stayed, he may loss job and his family members would also suffer adverse consequences. As per section 389(1) Cr.P.C. appellate court can suspend or grant stay on the operation of order of conviction. Looking to the special facts of the case, rare relief of stay the conviction can be granted. Learned counsel has relied upon Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 574 and Ramkaran vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2013 (1) WLC (Raj.) 130. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioner has come with clean hands. He has deposited all the dues with regard to maintenance order passed by the courts, both u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. Despite that, he is ready to pay any amount if found unpaid. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for complainant/respondent submitted that an order granting stay of conviction is not the rule but is an exception, to be resorted to in rare cases where failure to stay the conviction, would lead to injustice and irreversible consequences. He has placed reliance on State of Rajasthan vs. Salman Salim Khan, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 2831. 11. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent further submitted that conviction u/s 498A IPC involves moral turpitude which is a misconduct and may lead to discharge/ termination from services. He has relied upon a judgment dated 20.1.1999 delivered by Kerala High Court in Vincent Varghese vs. State Bank of India, 2000 ILLJ 1268. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not regular in payment of maintenance allowances and does not deserve the relief as prayed for. 13. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through the material available on record. 14. In Navjot Singh Sidhu’s case (supra), Apex Court has held in para no. 6 as follows: “6. The legal position is, therefore, clear that an appellate court can suspend or grant stay of order of conviction. But the person seeking stay of conviction should specifically draw the attention of the appellate court to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed. 6 as follows: “6. The legal position is, therefore, clear that an appellate court can suspend or grant stay of order of conviction. But the person seeking stay of conviction should specifically draw the attention of the appellate court to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed. Unless the attention of the court is drawn to the specific consequences that would follow on account of the conviction, the person convicted cannot obtain an order of stay of conviction. Further, grant of stay of conviction can be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case.” 15. In Salman Salim Khan’s case (supra), Apex Court has observed in para no. 12 as follows: “12. If an order of conviction in any manner is causing irreversible consequences or injustice to the respondent, it was open to the court to consider the same. If the court comes to a definite conclusion that the irreversible consequences/injustice would cause to the accused which could not be restored, it was well within the domain of the court to stay the conviction.” 16. A co-ordinate Bench of this court has held in Ramkaran’s case (supra) that an accused who is a teacher, is liable to loss job if the conviction be not stayed, and his family would suffer adverse consequences, an accused would cease to be eligible for appointment afresh on the ground of age, order of conviction passed against him, can be stayed u/s 389 Cr.P.C. till disposal of the appeal. 17. However, in Shyam Narain Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 909 where the petitioner was working as Principal and his contention was that if the conviction is not stayed, he will loss his job, will be denied of his livelihood and he would not be in a position to participate in subsequent selection procedures conducted by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Allahabad. But, Apex Court refrained from appreciating such contentions for grant of order of stay of conviction and observed in para no. 6 as follows: “6. If the convict is involved in crimes which are so outrageous and yet beyond suspension of sentence, if the conviction also is stayed, it would have serious impact on the public perception on the integrity of the institution. Such orders definitely will shake the public confidence in judiciary. 6 as follows: “6. If the convict is involved in crimes which are so outrageous and yet beyond suspension of sentence, if the conviction also is stayed, it would have serious impact on the public perception on the integrity of the institution. Such orders definitely will shake the public confidence in judiciary. That is why, it has been cautioned time and again that the court should be very wary in staying the conviction especially in the types of cases referred to above and it shall be done only in very rare and exceptional cases of irreparable injury coupled with irreversible consequences resulting in injustice.” 18. In the light of above legal position when the instant matter is considered, it is found that loss of job has not been found a valid consideration for grant of rare remedy of staying the order of conviction. The petitioners have nowhere averred or substantiated any fact that irreparable injury coupled with irreversible consequences are to ensue consequent upon loss of job and the petitioner will subject to grave injustice. 19. In absence of requisite and convincing grounds, the instant petition cannot be said to be a fit case for exercise of power u/s 389(1) Cr.P.C. vested in the court. 20. Therefore, the application for stay of order of conviction is rejected.