Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2509
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Rajendra Kumar Prajapat – Appellant
Versus
Neetu Gudiya – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 1141/2019, 599/2018 and 1280/2019
Decided On : 01-04-2022
Mahaveer Singh Amrawat, Advocate, for the Appellant
Haider Agha and Salman Agha, Advocates, for the Respondents
The court upheld the principle of providing maintenance to a spouse in need under Section 125 Cr.P.C., considering the financial position and standard of living, and scrutinized the evidence of independent income.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision Petitions - Matrimonial Dispute - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - 10.07.2019 - Rs. 14,000/- per month - Rs. 45000/- per month - Main gate of the matrimonial home - Locking - Free and safe passage of entry and exit - Income tax returns - Independent source of income - Legal profession - Separate entry to matrimonial home - Name plate affixed - Maintenance awarded - Dismissal of petitions
Fact of the Case:
The wife alleged continuous harassment and mistreatment by her husband and in-laws, leading to her forced eviction from the matrimonial home. She sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming lack of independent income and her husband's substantial earnings. The husband contested, alleging baseless claims and false employment status.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were well reasoned and did not warrant interference, dismissing the petitions and upholding the maintenance awarded to the wife.
Issues: Harassment and mistreatment of wife, forced eviction, maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., husband's financial position, wife's employment status
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the maintenance awarded to the wife, considering the quality and standard of living, and found no evidence of the wife's independent income. It also noted the wife's separate entry to the matrimonial home with her name plate affixed.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.
2. These criminal revision petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
Revision Petition No. 1141/2019:
vr% QkStnkjh fuxjkuh ;kfpdk is'k dj izkFkhZ fouez fuosnu djrk gS fd ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; la[;k 01] tks/kiqj jkt ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh iznhi dqekj tSu] ftyk U;k;k/kh'k dsMj }kjk QkStnkjh ewy izkFkZuk i= la[;k 04@2018 cvuoku~ ^^Jherh uhrw cuke jktsUnz dqekj* ds izdj.k esa tks vkns'k fnukad 10-07-2019 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k mls vikLr fd;k tkos] vU; dksbZ mfpr vkns'k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; bl QkStnkjh fuxjkuh ds fuLrkj.k gsrq vko';d le>s] gqdqe QjekosaA
Revision Petition No. 599/2018:
"a) The present revision petition shall be accepted.
b) Order passed by Additional Session Judge (women Atrocities cases) Jodhpur metro dated 2/05/2018 in criminal appeal no. 17/2018 titled "Smt. Neetu v. Rajendra Kumar & Ors" shall be set aside.
c) Order passed by Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan magistrate no. 4 Jodhpur Metro dated 4/12/2017 in case no. 932/2017 titled "Smt. Neetu v. Rajendra Kumar & Ors" shall be set aside.
d) An order may be passed directing the non-revisionist to not to lock the main gate of the matrimonial house of the revisionist and not to restrain the revisionist from entering into her residential portion of her matrimonial home.
e) Litigation expenses shall be granted to the revisionists.
f) Order of cost shall be passed in favor of revisionists."
Revision Petition No. 1280/2019:
"a. Present petition may be allowed by this Hon'ble Court.
b. Order dated 10.07.2019 passed by learned Family Court No. 1 Jodhpur in criminal case no. 4/2018 titled "Smt. Neetu v. Rajendra Kumar" may be modified to the extent that the quantum of interim maintenance may be enhanced from Rs. 14000/- per month to Rs. 45000/- per month.
c. Quantum of interim maintenance may be enhanced from Rs. 14000/- per month to Rs. 45000/- per month and the said amount may be granted from the date of application.
d. Cost of this petition and other legal expenses may be awarded in favour of the present petitioner."
3. Smt. Neetu (hereinafter referred to as 'wife') and Shri Rajendra Kumar Prajapat (hereinafter referred to as "husband") are, amongst others, the parties to the present petitions.
4. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 599/2018, while treating the same as a lead case.
5. The wife pleaded that since her marriage, her husband and in-laws have continuously harassed and mistreated her. Although at the time of institution of the case, she was residing in her matrimonial home, her husband and in-laws have been trying to oust her from her matrimonial home. And further, that the learned court below has also recorded the finding to the said effect. Subsequently, the husband's father also filed an application seeking to evict the wife from her matrimonial home before the concerned court, however, the said application was dismissed by the learned court below. However, although she was not ousted from her matrimonial home, the living environment was such that she was compelled to leave the home.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the wife submits that she was forced to leave her matrimonial home by her husband and in-laws due to constant harassment. And that, the main gate of the matrimonial home would be locked denying her re-entry therefrom.
6.1. Learned counsel further submits that the wife presented an application before the concerned court praying that the husband be restrained from denying her free and safe passage of entry and exit in relation to her matrimonial home. However, the said application was dismissed. And that the wife preferred an appeal, which was also subsequently dismissed.
6.2. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned orders passed by
