1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
Smt. Bali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.108/2006
Date of Order : 13-1-09
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.CHAUDHARI
Mr.Sudhir Saruparia, for petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Chundawat for respondent.
BY THE COURT:
This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed
against the order dated 26.10.2005 passed by Special Judge,
SC/ST Cases, Pratapgarh (for short `the revisional court’
hereinafter) in Revision No.14/2005, Balu Vs. Smt. Bali &
Anr., whereby the order dt. 10.11.2004 passed by ACJM,
Pratapgarh (for short `the trial court’ hereinafter) in case
No.229/1999, Bali vs. Balu granting maintenance to the
petitioner at the rate of Rs.500/- per month, was set aside.
2
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner filed an
application under section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Pratapgarh and alleged that she was married to
non-petitioner but non-petitioner used to beat her on
account of shortage of dowry, her hand was broken and now
she is residing with her parents and non-petitioner has
contracted “Nata” marriage with Gattu, she has no means of
maintenance, whereas non-petitioner has 20 bighas of land
and two wells and earns Rs.3,00,000/- per year, hence she
may be awarded maintenance.
Non-petitioner submitted reply and alleged that
petitioner without any information used to go to her parents’
house and many times, he tried to make her understand but
his in-laws told him that non-petitioner has to live in village
Pipalia and when non-petitioner refused, a false case was
filed against him; he never beat the petitioner; he has not
married again and he is ready to keep her with him, so the
petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance. After recording
evidence of both the parties, learned trial court vide order
3
dated 10.11.2004 ordered non-petitioner to pay
maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.500/- per
month from 12.9.1999, the date of presentation of
application. Non-petitioner filed revision and the revisional
court vide order dated 26.10.2005 accepted the revision and
set aside the order of the trial court against which, this
petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
non-petitioner has beaten petitioner and ousted her from his
house and in such circumstances, the petitioner is living with
her parents. He further argued that non-petitioner has
married again, so the petitioner is entitled to maintenance
and the revisional court has committed error in setting aside
the order of the trial court, hence this petition may be
accepted and order of the trial court may be restored,
whereas learned counsel for non-petitioner submitted that
order of revisional court is in accordance with law, hence
petition may be dismissed.
It is admitted position that petitioner is married
wife of non-petitioner and petitioner is living with her
4
parents. The petitioner has alleged that she was beaten by
non-petitioner and the non-petitioner has stated in his
statement that the petitioner has falsely implicated him and
he was acquitted vide judgment Ex.A-1. Thus, it is admitted
position that petitioner filed case against the non-petitioner
for beating etc. and in that case, no doubt, the non-
petitioner has been acquitted but in such circumstances, it
cannot be expected from the petitioner to live with non-
petitioner. Petitioner and her witnesses have further stated
that non-petitioner has married with Gattu. Non-petitioner
in his examination-in-chief has stated that petitioner has
levelled allegation of “Nata” on him. He has not specifically
denied in his examination-in-chief regarding “Nata” with
Gattu. He has denied in his cross-examination that Gattu’s
name appears in electoral roll at serial No.573, whereas his
name appears at serial NO.570, but electoral roll contains
their names at aforesaid serial numbers. Though he denied
the marriage with Gattu and has further denied that he has
two children from Gattu but he has not stated this fact in his
examination-in-chief and on the contrary, the petitioner and
other witnesses have stated in their statements that non-
petitioner has married with Gattu, though there is no specific
5
evidence of marriage with Gattu but it seems that non-
petitioner is residing with Gattu and when there is
apprehension of beating to the petitioner, it is not expected
that petitioner will live with non-petitioner. Learned
revisional court has committed error in accepting revision
petition on these grounds.
As far non-petitioner’s income is concerned, the
non-petitioner himself has produced certificate of income
Ex.A-2, which reveals that his annual income is Rs.12,000/-
and in such circumstances, the trial court has not committed
any error in granting Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to
the petitioner.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the
petition of the petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby
accepted and the order of the revisional court dated
26.10.2005 is set aside and the order of the trial court dated
10.11.2004 is restored.
[KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI],J.
m.asif/-