1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJSTHAN AT

JODHPUR

ORDER

S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.1221/2014

Shambhoo Prasad & Anr. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi & Anr.

Date of order: 16.2.2015

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

Mr. Nitin Trivedi, for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Choudhary, Public Prosecutor

<><><>

The instant cr. revision petition has been

filed by the petitioners to challenge the order

dated 20.10.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge

(Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara in appeal

No.27/2014 whereby the said appellate court

dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners

against the order dated 28.2.2014 in Cr. Case

No.298/2008 (Smt. Pushpa Devi & Ors. Vs. Shambhoo

Prasad & Anr.) by which the Judicial Magistrate

No.2, Bhilwara allowed the application filed by the

respondents under Section 12 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Voilence Act, 2005 (hereinafter

referred to as the Act of 2005 for short) and

granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,500/- for

2

respondent no.1 and Rs.3,000/- for respondent no.2

minor daughter.

The learned counsel for the petitioner

vehemently argued that finding given by both the

courts below in granting maintenance of Rs.6,500/-

to the wife and daughter are totally illegal

because the petitioner-husband is working as driver

in RSRTC and getting only Rs.12,000/- per month

salary. So also, there are other family members

to whom petitioner is required to maintain.

Therefore, it is a case in which the maintenance

granted by the learned trial court is on higher

side.

The learned counsel for the petitioner

further argued that the order impugned may be

quashed and appropriate order to reduce the

maintenance may be passed.

In spite of the service, none present on

behalf of the respondents. I have perused the

finding given by the learned trial court in the

order of maintenance to the wife and daughter of

the petitioner so also, perused the pay slip

annexed with the petition. Upon perusal of pay

slip it is revealed that total salary of the

petitioner is Rs.24,354/-, out of which there is

3

deduction of Rs.4,000/- for RD Account of saving

and there is disclosure of penalty of Rs.2265/-

which has already been deducted. Meaning thereby,

the earning of the petitioner is more than

Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that

order of maintenance passed in favour of the minor

daughter and wife of the petitioner is illegal.

More so, the learned trial court has rightly passed

an order for maintenance under the provisions of

the Act of 2005.

In view of the above facts, no interference is

called for in this revision petition. Hence, the

revision petition is hereby dismissed.

(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J.

cpgoyal/-