Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2407 (RAJ)

Rakesh Gehlot v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-09

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that the application filed by the petitioner u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. may be allowed and: The order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the learned Family Court No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 69/2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed as prayed for." 2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that a complaint was filed by the complainant/respondent No. 2 (wife) before the learned Court below, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband (petitioner herein), her father-in-law and her mother-in-law, alleging therein that immediately after she got married to the present petitioner, on 31.01.2013 at Jodhpur, the petitioner-husband and her in-laws began harassing her, while making excessive demands of dowry. And that, she was subsequently thrown out of her matrimonial home, while her in-laws kept all her Stridhan with them. Out of the wedlock, the parties have a daughter. 2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that during pendency of the aforementioned complaint, the petitioner moved a Misc. Petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2195/2019 for quashing of the entire proceedings, whereupon, this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 13.05.2019, had stayed the proceedings, only qua the other family members of the petitioner-husband. 2.2. Learned counsel also submitted that while the proceedings were going on before the learned court below, the petitioner moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for calling certain documents, and pay slips in relation to the employment of the complainant/respondent as a teacher in a School, namely, Emmanuel Mission School, Nayapura, while stating therein that the complainant-wife is working as a teacher in the said school, which is evident from her signature (as teacher) on the copy of a mark-sheet issued to a student of that school. Thus, as per learned counsel, the complainant-wife is not entitled to any interim or final maintenance as she is earning sufficient income to maintain herself. 2.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no. Thus, as per learned counsel, the complainant-wife is not entitled to any interim or final maintenance as she is earning sufficient income to maintain herself. 2.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no. 2, wife, has concealed the said information, in the affidavits, regarding disclosure of income, filed in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 . 2.4. Learned counsel however, submitted that the learned Court below, without duly appreciating the object and purpose of Section 91 Cr.P.C. has erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 22.10.2021, without taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on record before it; thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 3.1. It was jointly submitted that on an earlier occasion also, the same application was preferred by the present petitioner before the learned court below, which was rejected. However, the present petitioner preferred a subsequent application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., on the same facts and grounds, which is nothing but a blatant attempt to deprive the complainant-wife of her right to interim maintenance, by seeking to prolong the adjudication of the case before the learned Court below. And thus, the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order, after taking into due consideration, the conduct of the petitioner-husband, who sought to deprive the complainant-wife of her lawful right to interim maintenance. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 5. And thus, the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order, after taking into due consideration, the conduct of the petitioner-husband, who sought to deprive the complainant-wife of her lawful right to interim maintenance. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 5. This Court observes that the main ground raised on behalf of the present petitioner, is that the learned Family Court No. 3, Jodhpur vide the impugned order, has gravely erred in rejecting the Section 91 Cr.P.C. application so preferred by the petitioner, owing to the fact that the income of the wife was not taken into due consideration, and that by way of filing the said application, the petitioner sought to place on record certain documents to prove that there was a concealment made by the wife, in filing the affidavits, regarding the disclosure of her income, filed in accordance with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 . 6. This Court further observes that the learned Court below, in passing the impugned order, rejecting the aforementioned application of the petitioner, has categorically dealt with the said contention raised by the petitioner-husband, and held that the wife had returned to the concerned school, only for a period of about 5 days, that too without pay, owing to the fact that another teacher was on casual leave, and the concerned school required assistance in conducting students' examinations. It is in that vein, that the respondent no. 2, the wife's signature was found on the copy of the mark-sheet of a student, one Madhav Gehlot. And that, on a perusal of the record, the learned Court below did not find any discrepancy in the disclosure of income made by the wife, in the affidavit filed in compliance of Rajnesh (supra) wherein she asserted that after April 2018, she was not earning any income. 7. And that, on a perusal of the record, the learned Court below did not find any discrepancy in the disclosure of income made by the wife, in the affidavit filed in compliance of Rajnesh (supra) wherein she asserted that after April 2018, she was not earning any income. 7. This Court further observes that the present petitioner made certain averments to the effect that there were some deposits in the bank account of the wife, which pointed towards her earning an income, however, the learned Court below rightly dismissed such claims of the petitioner, while observing that each amount, as pointed out by the present petitioner, were for varying sums of money, and could not be attributed to her (wife's) earning a stable monthly income. 8. Moreover, since the petitioner on an earlier occasion also filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., which stood rejected by the learned court below, therefore, the said rejection order passed by a competent court will operate as res judicata against filing of the subsequent application on the same set of facts and grounds in the pending litigation between the same parties. However, the said application filed subsequently, was rejected by the learned court below vide the impugned order, and rightly so. 9. This Court therefore, finds that the learned Court below has rightly taken into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case at hand, and passed the impugned order after a thorough perusal of the record, and while dealing with each of the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner husband, before it. 10. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. 11. Resultantly, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.