Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 367 (RAJ)

Sita Sharma v. Heera Lal Upadhyay

2018-01-30

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner Smt. Sita has approached this court for challenging the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bhilwara in revision affirming the order dated 15.07.2006, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara rejected the application submitted on behalf of the petitioner under section 125 CrPC, 1973 claiming maintenance from the respondent. 2. I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well as the impugned orders. 3. The thrust of the arguments advanced by Mr. Chudawat was that the respondent himself admitted in his cross-examination that he had contracted Nata marriage with a woman named Rekha. He, thus, urges that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner to reside separately from the respondent and claim maintenance from him. He, thus, implores the court to exercise its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC, 1973 to quash the impugned orders and award wholesome maintenance to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel representing the respondent, pointed out that the prosecution lodged by the petitioner against the respondent for the offence under Section 494 IPC resulted in favour of the respondent with his acquittal recorded by the competent court vide judgment dated 27.09.2007. That apart, he also drew the court's attention to the statement of the respondent, wherein he made a specific averment that the petitioner is having her own agricultural land from which she earns a sum of Rs. 4-5 lacs per annum. He points out that no cross-examination was made by the petitioner from the respondent on this aspect of his testimony. On these grounds, he craves rejection of the miscellaneous petition. 5. I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced and have gone through the material available on record. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 was filed by the petitioner in the year 2002 with the allegation that she was married to the respondent about 12 years ago and that the respondent turned her out of the matrimonial home and remarried. In her cross-examination during the course of enquiry, the petitioner admitted that she as well as her elder sister are living at their father's house. In her cross-examination during the course of enquiry, the petitioner admitted that she as well as her elder sister are living at their father's house. The material available on record also indicates that the petitioner and her sister are the only two children of her father and significant agricultural land has devolve upon them from the father's properties. No cross-examination whatsoever was made from the respondent on his pertinent assertion that the petitioner earns a sum of Rs. 4-5 lacs by farming operations on the said chunk of land. The respondent stands acquitted in the case of bigamy filed against him by the petitioner vide judgment dated 27.09.2007. Two competent courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact after appreciating and re-appreciating the evidence available on record and came to the only possible and logical conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that she was unable to maintain herself so as to justify the claim of maintenance from the respondent. Hence, this court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC, 1973 so as to interfere in the impugned orders. 6. Resultantly, the instant miscellaneous petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 7. The record be returned to the trial court forthwith.