Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nitin Kumar vs Divya Singh on 17 February, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 797/2022
Nitin Kumar S/o Shri Karan Pal Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o D-
239, A-Z Green Estate, Modipuram, Meerut, Up - 250110.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Divya Singh W/o Nitin Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o A-58,
Rawla, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. Shatakashi Singh D/o Shri Nitin Kumar, Aged About 8 Years,
Minor Through Her Mother Respondent No. 1 Divya Singh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
17/02/2022
This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC has been
preferred on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the
order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the Family Court No.3, Jodhpur
(for short 'the trial court'), whereby the application preferred on
behalf of the petitioner under Section 311 CrPC read with Section
91 CrPC and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act has been
dismissed.
In the proceedings initiated at the instance of the
respondents under Section 125 CrPC, the respondent No.1 has
examined herself as witness and the evidence of the petitioner has
also been closed.
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-797/2022]
After closer of the evidence of the petitioner, he moved an
application before the trial court under Section 311 CrPC read with
Section 91 CrPC and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act with a
prayer to summon bank account statements, income-tax returns
and several other information with regard to the respondent No.1.
It has also been prayed that the respondent No.1 may also be
recalled so that the petitioner may again cross examine her on
some points and her parents may also be called for giving their
evidence.
The trial court after taking into consideration the contents of
the application filed on behalf of the petitioner and after hearing of
learned counsel for the parties has held that the petitioner has
failed to demonstrate that how those documents, sought to be
summoned, are relevant for the purpose of deciding the
application under Section 125 CrPC. The trial court is also of the
opinion that in the facts and circumstances, there is no
requirement of recalling the respondent No.1 and her parents for
giving evidence. The trial court has, therefore, rejected the
aforesaid application filed by the petitioner.
Being aggrieved with the same, this criminal misc. petition is
filed on behalf of the petitioner.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after
going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the
trial court has not committed any illegality while rejecting the
aforesaid application filed by the petitioner vide impugned order.
Hence, no case for inference in the impugned order passed
by the trial court is made out.
On a pertinent query, learned counsel for the petitioner has
frankly informed this Court that the trial court vide order dated
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-797/2022]
20.11.2019 has directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance
to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent Nos.1 and
2. It is also informed that the said order was challenged by the
petitioner before this Court by way of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.558/2020, but the same was disposed of on 24.02.2020 with a
direction to the trial court to conclude the proceedings under
Section 125 CrPC expeditiously.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly submitted that
till date, the petitioner has not paid any interim maintenance to
the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It appears that the petitioner has
moved application under Section 311 CrPC read with Section 91
CrPC and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act on 12.08.2021
when the matter was fixed for final hearing by the trial court and
the aforesaid application remained pending for around four
months.
From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is
clear that the petitioner has moved the said application only with
the intention to delay the proceedings pending before the trial
court.
Taking into consideration the above and facts and
circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition
and the same is therefore dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,000/-,
which the petitioner shall pay to the respondent No.1 on the next
date of hearing before the trial court.
Though, this Court has already issued directions to the trial
court to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC pending
before it expeditiously, however, again it is directed that the trial
court shall conclude the proceedings initiated at the instance of
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-797/2022]
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 expeditiously, preferably within a
period of three months from today.
Copy of this order be send to the trial court forthwith.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
31-mohit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
