1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
Prahlad Das Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.126/2008)
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition under Section
397/401 Cr.P.C.
Date of Order :- May 24, 2011
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN
None present for the petitioner.
Mr.Anil Upadhyaya, Public Prosecutor.
Mr.Manish Sishodia, for the respondents.
BY THE COURT:
Yesterday on 23.05.2011, this matter was listed
before this Court. However, no one appeared on behalf of
the petitioner. Still in the interest of justice, this Court
directed that the matter be listed today i.e. 24.05.2011. It
was also made clear that in case the learned counsel for the
petitioner does not appear on 24.05.2011, this Court shall
have no other option, but to decide the case ex-parte. Even
today, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner
before this Court. Therefore, this Court has no other
option, but to decide the case ex-parte.
The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner-husband, Prahlad Das, and the respondent-wife,
2
Smt. Laxmi Devi Vaishnav, were married in 1988 according
to the Hindu rites and customs. On 21.11.1990, the couple
was blessed with a son. According to the respondent-wife,
while she stayed at her matrimonial home, she was
subjected to physical and mental cruelty. Since she had a
child, she was unable to live anywhere else. However,
subsequently the petitioner-husband moved a divorce
petition. The said divorce petition was granted ex-parte.
Thereafter, the petitioner-husband had married another
lady from whom he already has a daughter. Unable to
maintain herself, the respondent-wife filed an application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In order to buttress her case, the
respondent-wife examined herself and two other persons as
witnesses; the petitioner-husband also examined himself
and two more persons as witnesses. After going through
the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge
directed the petitioner-husband to pay a maintenance of
Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs.1,500/-
per month to the respondent-son. Aggrieved by this order,
the petitioner has filed the present petition before this
Court.
A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly
reveals that the learned Judge has noticed the fact that
despite the fact that the petitioner-husband claimed that
3
the respondent-wife was not his lawful married wife, the
said contention has been rejected after meticulously
examining the evidence. Moreover, the learned Judge has
also noticed the fact that the respondent-wife is unable to
maintain herself and her child. Although the petitioner had
claimed that the respondent-wife was earning by stitching
cloths, but the said claim could not be established by any
cogent evidence.
Lastly, the learned Judge has noticed the fact
that according to the petitioner-husband, he was earning
about Rs.10,000/- per month. Considering the economic
condition of the couple, the learned Judge was certainly
justified in granting a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month
to the respondent-wife and Rs.1,500/- per month to the
respondent-son. Thus, the maintenance amount awarded by
the learned Judge is just and reasonable.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not
find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This
petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.
The stay petition also stands dismissed.
(R.S. CHAUHAN) J.
Manoj solanki
