1
S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No.523/03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 523/03
Bhanwar Lal
Vs.
Ms. Priyanka
Date of order : 21/04/2009
HON’BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J.
Mr. K.K.Shah for the petitioner.
Mrs. Suman Porwal for the respondent.
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is directed against the order dated 17.6.2003 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Pali (for short ‘the revisional court’ hereinafter)
whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the
order dated 14.1.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pali (for short ‘the trial court’ hereinafter) came to be
dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
2
S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No.523/03
that on an application filed by the respondent who is indisputably
daughter of the present petitioner, the petitioner came with a
case, in the year 2003, he had annual income of Rs. 22,500/-
and in support thereof he has placed on record the income tax
return Ex.D-1 and despite the fact that the petitioner could
establish his annual income to the extent of Rs. 22,500/-, the
trial court granted the monthly maintenance of Rs. 1500/- in
favour of the respondent daughter and therefore, the trial court
fell in error in granting monthly maintenance to the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
revisional court also fell in error in not appreciating the evidence
available on record of the trial court.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that the trial court as well as the revisional court found
that the petitioner did not disclose his correct income and on
many questions put to him during cross-examination, he has
avoided the answer or has given vague answer and therefore,
the courts below concluded that the annual income of the
petitioner is much more than what has been disclosed in the
income tax return and therefore, considering the necessity of
respondent daughter granted the monthly allowance of
3
S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No.523/03
maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- which in any manner
cannot be said to be excessive to maintain a girl of about 9 years
at the relevant time of filing petition and now according to
learned counsel for the parties, the respondent has attained the
age of 17 years.
From the perusal of the record and the statement of
the petitioner, in my view, both the courts below were justified in
concluding that the annual income of the petitioner is much more
than what he has disclosed in the income tax return. The
petitioner has failed to place on record the relevant documents
regarding his income. He came with a case that he is a
Commission Agent and his annual income is Rs. 22,500/-. Both
the courts below also kept in mind what should be a proper
amount of maintenance to maintain a school going girl and more
particularly now the respondent is about 17 years of age, in this
view of the matter, in my view, a sum of Rs.1500/- per month as
maintenance in any manner cannot be said to be on higher side,
on the contrary, keeping in view the market inflation, the
amount of Rs.1500/- per month is hardly an amount to maintain
a girl of 17 years. There is concurrent finding of facts recorded
by both the courts below and therefore, I find no good ground to
4
S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No.523/03
take a different view than the one taken by the courts below, in
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It cannot be
said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage
of justice or abuse of the process of the Court.
The criminal misc. petition is devoid of any merit and it is
therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
rp