SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Raj) 252

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jaipur Bench
Onkar Lal @ Onkar Vs. Mohar Bai & Ors. (Sharma, J.)
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Onkar Lal @ Onkar
Versus
Mohar Bai & Ors.
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 1036 & 1292 of 2008 and 168 of 2009,
decided on 27.08.2013

Advocates Appeared
Vinay Pandey, for Petitioner in SB Cr. Revision No.1036 of 2009;
Nitin Jain, for Petitioner in SB Cr. Revision No.1292 of 2008;
Rajvir Sharma, for Petitioner in SB Cr. Revision No.168 of 2009;
D.S. Jhala, for Non-petitioners Smt. Mohar Bai, Kumari Manisha and Kumari Priyanka in SB Cr. Revision Petitions Nos. 168/2009 and 1292 of 2008

Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 311, 401, 125 — Recalling the non-petitioner for recording her statement again and for maintenance — Trial Court rejected — Held — No new circumstance was produced before trial court — Impugned order was passed after hearing both the parties — Only for passing order for maintenance u/S. 125 Cr.P.C., there is no need to further record the statement of applicant as the application was pending since 2002 — The applicant is Govt. Servant and having agriculture land, the order of awarding maintenance of Rs. 4000/- to the non petitioners is just and proper — The amount already paid, shall not be disturbed and Family Court is free to proceed as per law.

       Revision Petition No. 1036/2008 & 1292/2008 rejected.

       Revision Petition No. 168/2009 disposed of. (Paras 15 to 21)

       na-iz-la-] 1973] /kkjk 311] 401] 125 & Hkj.k iks"k.k gsrq vizkFkhZ ds c;ku iqu% ntZ djus gsrq mls okil cqykuk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us fujLr fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k dksbZ ubZ ifjfLFkfr is'k ugha dh xbZ & nksuksa i{kksa dks lquus ds ckn vk{ksfir vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk & na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 125 ds rgr Hkj.k iks"k.k gsrq vkns'k ikfjr djus ek= ds fy, izkFkhZ ds vkxs vkSj c;ku ntZ djus dh t:jr ugha pwafd lu~ 2002 ls vkosnu yfEcr Fkk & izkFkhZ ljdkjh ukSdj gS vkSj mlds ikl d`f"k Hkwfe gS] vr% vizkFkhZx.k dks 4000@- :- Hkj.k iks"k.k nsus dk vkns'k lgh o U;k;ksfpr gS & ftl jkf'k dk Hkqxrku igys gh fd;k tk pqdk gS mlesa fo/u ugha Mkyk tk;sxk] vkSj ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; dkuwu lEer dk;Zokgh djus gsrq Lora= gSA

       iqujh{k.k la- 1037@2008 fujLr dh ysfdu iqujh{k.k la- 168@09 dks fuLrkfjr dhA ¼in la[;k 15 ls 21½

       

Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Criminal Revision Petition No.1036 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner Onkar Lal @ Onkar under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 311 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 5.5.2008 passed by Family Court, Kota in Case No.38/2002 whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected. Cr. Revision Petition No. 1292 of 2008 has been filed against the order dated 8.8.2008 of Family Court in Criminal Case No.38/2002 whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the non-petitioners was allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.1000/- each from 9.1.2002 to the non-petitioners 2 and 3 and Rs. 1500/- per month to the non-petitioner No.1 and Rs. 1250/- per month each to the non-petitioners No.2 and 3 and Rs. 1500/- per month to the non-petitioner No.1 total Rs.4,000/-. The Court also directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1500/- towards due payment to the wife till the arrears are not paid. The non-petitioners were also directed to recover the arrears of maintenance allowance as a whole if for any three months the amount of the maintenance is not paid to the non-petitioners. Criminal Revision Petition No.168 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.12.2008 of the Family Court Kota in Cr. Misc. Case No.71/2007 requesting the Sessions Judge Chittorgarh for deducting half of the amount of the pay drawn by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rasmi where the petitioner is posted and the same was directed to be sent through Demand Draft or Banker Cheque and further the matter was directed to be kept on 25.2.2009.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petitions are that on or about 9.1.2002 the non-petitioners namely Smt. Mohar Bai wife of the petitioner Onkar, Kumari Manisha daughter of Onkar Lal petitioner and Kumari Priyanka daughter of petitioner Onkar (in short non-petitioners) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the petitioner in the court of Family Court Kota to this effect that the marriage of the non-petitioner No.1 was solemnized with the petitioner on 28.5.1991 at village Dabri Kalan and the Gauna ceremony was performed in the year 1993. Thereafter she came to reside in the matrimonial home with the petitioner. It was further alleged that the behaviour of the petitioner was very rude and he used to pressurize the non-petitioner N.1 for getting the dowry. It is further submitted that from the wedlock, non-petitioner No.2 and 3 were born. It is also submitted that the petitioner used to beat her many times and one day be beaten the non-petitioner and thrown her out of the house. It is relevant to mention here that the non-petitioner No.1 has filed criminal complaint against the petitioner and his family members for the offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. It was further alleged that the non-petitioner is unable to maintain herself and children and for earning her bread and butter she wants maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the application and it was alleged that after some time of the marriage some dispute arouse between the family on account of the undue interference of the parents of the non-petitioner No.1, who used to retort that the petitioner was an employed person and that he was below standard. It was further alleged that the non-petitioner No.1 developed illicit relations with her brother-in-law (Jija) namely Parmanand son of Ramchanran, who is widower, as a result of which the non-petitioner No.1 has been residing with him for over a period of last 6 years. As a result of such illicit relations non-petitioner No.1 conceived and in order to conceal the factum of illicit relationship she got the child aborted. In such circumstances the petitioner filed a divorce petition on 21.7.2000 before the District Judge Jhalawar under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage act on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The DJ Jhalawar, issued notices to the non-petitioner No.1








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top