Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt Shrawani vs Rameshwar Lal on 7 July, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1352/2018
Smt Shrawani Spouse/o Rameshwar Lal Suthar, Aged About 58
Years, D/o Dev Kishan, R/o Ward No.19, Sujandesar, Bikaner
(Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
Rameshwar Lal, S/o Lt Mangi Lal Suthar, R/o 59, Khata No.25/1
W.no.14, Mallapa Lay Out Seegehali, K R Puram, Near
Shrigandha Niliya Apartment, Banglore - 560036.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Ms. Annu Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
07/07/2021
The instant revision under Section 19(4) of the Family
Court Act, 1984 has been preferred by the petitioner Smt.
Shrawani for assailing the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the
learned Family Court No.2, Bikaner in Criminal Misc. Case
No.211/2016, whereby the application filed by the petitioner
under Section 125 CrPC was rejected.
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced
by Mr. J.S. Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate, representing the
petitioner-wife, and Mr. M.S. Purohit, learned counsel representing
the respondent-husband and have gone through the impugned
order.
The learned Family Court appreciated the evidence
available on record and found that the petitioner had previously
(2 of 3) [CRLR-1352/2018]
also filed an application under Section 125 CrPC, which was
rejected by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3,
Bikaner by order dated 26.09.2011. The Family Court also took
note of the fact that after rejection of the said application under
Section 125 CrPC, the petitioner also filed an application for
claiming monetary relief under Section 12 of the Domestic
Violence Act in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court, First Bangalore, which was also rejected by order
dated 16.12.2014.
In this background, the learned Family Court was of the
view that the petitioner was making repeated abortive attempts to
claim maintenance from the respondent and as two courts of
competent jurisdiction had rejected the prayer of the petitioner on
merits, she was held to be disentitled for receiving maintenance
from the respondent. The application was rejected on the
principle of res judicata.
I am of the prima facie opinion that the view taken by
the learned Family Court is absolutely justified. In addition
thereto, there are startling facts which compel the court to hold
that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any maintenance from
the petitioner.
In this regard, it would be fruitful to refer to the
judgment dated 09.09.2014 passed by a Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court, Bangalore in First Appeal No.3312/2012
filed by the petitioner under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act
against the judgment dated 17.10.2008 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in Misc. Case
No.2227/2006, whereby the application filed by the respondent
under Section 13(i)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act was
(3 of 3) [CRLR-1352/2018]
accepted. During the proceedings of the appeal, the High Court
was informed that the decree of divorce passed by the Family
Court was not challenged by the petitioner wife for a significant
period of time and the respondent-husband re-married during this
period. He, however, fairly offered one time lump sum
maintenance amount to the petitioner, but she refused to accept
the same. It is admitted that the petitioner's two major able-
bodied sons are living with her.
In this background, it is manifest that the petitioner
had no genuine need for maintenance and the proceedings under
Section 125 CrPC were instituted by her just out of vengeance and
in order to harass and humiliate the respondent.
As a consequence, I find no reason to entertain this
revision, which is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
36-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
