[2025:RJ-JD:36238]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 390/2024 ----Petitioner Versus ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 304/2024 ----Petitioner Versus ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shankar Dayal Goswami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

Reserved On- 12/08/2025 Pronounced On- 27/08/2025

1. Petitioner- Smt. Sunita Devi (wife) by filing the revision petition has sought enhancement of the maintenance amount and challenged the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.391/2015, whereby, the learned Family Court while allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., filed by her directed the respondent – Sumit Bishnoi (husband) to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner-wife from the date of filing of the said application i.e. 05.11.2025.

2. Respondent- Sumit Bishnoi also by filing the revision petition has challenged the order impugned on the sole ground that the marriage was not solemnized between him and Smt. Sunita Devi, and therefore, the order impugned could not have been passed against him and in favour of Smt. Sunita Devi.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for necessary adjudication of the present revision petitions are that, Smt. Sunita Devi (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner” for the sake of brevity) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court on 05.11.2015, emphasizing therein that she and Sumit Bishnoi (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent” for the sake of brevity) got married on 03.03.2014 as per the Hindu rituals at Radha Krishan Temple, Haryana Bhawan, Sri Ganganagar, and thereafter stayed as husband and wife at the house of the respondent situated at 63 L.N.P, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar. It was asserted that father of the respondent was not happy with the marriage, and therefore the respondent had refused to get the marriage registered and had denied the same. Post which, an FIR No.325/2014 for offences punishable under Section 376, read with 120-B IPC was lodged by the petitioner-wife, wherein the Police, after investigation, had filed the charge-sheet against the respondent. Thereafter, a settlement was arrived at between the parties, and both Smt. Sunita Devi and Sumit Bishnoi stayed together as husband and wife at various places for 4 to 5 months.

3.1 It was asserted that after some time the respondent started threatening the petitioner with dire consequences and demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry and also physically assaulted her on 19.08.2015, due to which, she sustained a fracture in her left hand. It was asserted that since 08.09.2015, the respondent had deserted the petitioner and was not staying with her, due to which, she had again lodged an FIR No.237/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 420, 120-B, 325, 377 IPC against the respondent, wherein the Police, after investigation, while treating respondent as her husband had filed charge-sheet against respondent on 05.11.2015. She further asserted that the respondent was having 25 Bighas land in Chuck at 63 LNP and 20 Bighas of land in Chuck at 24 LGW, and thus, he was having a share in 45 Bighas of ancestral land and that he was the only son of his parents.

3.2 It was further asserted that the respondent by cultivating his ancestral land used to earn Rs.9,00,000/- per year (Rs.75,000/- per month), he used to earn Rs.2,50,000/- per year (Rs.20,000/- per month), by taking contract for cultivating the other land, he also used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month by doing finance work, and thus in total his earning was around Rs.1,15,000/- per month, whereas the petitioner was not doing anything and even the rent of her house was being paid by her mother-father. She thus claimed a sum of Rs.13,200/- per month being Rs.3,000/- as house rent, Rs.