Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 545
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
Pintu @ Ashok Bhati - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Anita Bhati and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1525 of 2014
Decided On : 9-3-2016
For the Petitioner:Rahul Agarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Resham Bhargava, Advocate.
For the State : R.R. Gujar, P.P.
Headnote:
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 9 - Facts of case are that complainant filed an complaint before trial court stating that her marriage took place with petitioner nine years before, and out of their wedlock, two children were born - After some time, demand of dowry was made - She filed an application for maintenance, to which petitioner replied and denied averments of said application - Thereafter petitioner filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed in favour of petitioner vide judgment Upon application of respondent, trial court passed order awarding maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month which was later on affirmed by appellate court vide impugned order - Hence this revision petition has been filed – Held , Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that trial court has passed order on surmises and conjectures - Impugned orders passed by both courts below are against material available on record and also against well settled principles of law - On other hand, Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for respondent have opposed submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner and submitted that orders passed by courts below are just and proper, hence need not to be interfered with - Learned counsel for parties, and perused impugned orders of both courts below, Court do not think it just and proper to interfere with impugned orders as Court in unison with findings arrived at by courts - Petition dismissed
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28/10/2014 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, No.3, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal no. 27/2014 (222/2014) by which order of interim maintenance passed by the Judl. Magistrate (First Class) No.3, Ajmer has been affirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant filed an complaint under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the trial court stating that her marriage took place with the petitioner nine years before, and out of their wedlock, two children were born. After some time, demand of dowry was made. She filed an application for maintenance, to which the petitioner replied and denied the averments of the said application. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed in favour of petitioner vide judgment dated 7.10.2010. Upon the application of respondent-1, the trial court passed the order on 7.6.2014 awarding maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month which was later on affirmed by the appellate court vide impugned order dated 28.10.2014. Hence this revision petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court has passed the order on surmises and conjectures. The impugned orders passed by both the courts below are against the material available on record and also against the well settled principles of law.
4. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 have opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the orders passed by the courts below are just and proper, hence need not to be interfered with.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned orders of both the courts below, I do not think it just and proper to interfere with the impugned orders as I am in unison with the findings arrived at by the courts below.
6. Accordingly, in view of above, this revision petition stands dismissed having no force.
