Chandra Shekhar Rajora vs Anjali Ravan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3754 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 550/2021

Chandra Shekhar Rajora S/o Sh. Nathu Lal Rajora, Aged About 39 Years, 71 A, Janta Nagar, Rankdi Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.). (Non- Applicant In Application Under Section 125 Of The Cr.pc.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Anjali Ravan W/o Chandra Shekhar Rajora, Aged About 35 Years, 71-A, Janta Nagar, Rankdi Sodala, Jaipur, Presently Residing At 70, Madhuvan Colony, Sriganganagar. (Applicant In Application Under Section 125 Of The Cr.pc.)

2. Kriti D/o Chandra Shekhar Rajora, Aged About 9 Years, Through Her Mother, Anjali Ravan, R/o 71-A, Janta Nagar, Rankdi Sodala, Jaipur, Presently Residing At 70, Madhuvan Colony, Sriganganagar. (Applicant In Application Under Section 125 Of The Cr.pc.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aishwarya Anand For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

10/03/2022

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is therefore most humble and respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that the record of the case may kindly be called for and;

• Quash the impugned/order dated 09-04-2021 passed by the Learned Family Court, Sri Ganganagar; and/or

(2 of 4) [CRLR-550/2021]

• Remit the matter back to the Learned Family Court, Sri Ganganagar to decide the quantum of maintenance in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.

• Pass any order which this Court may deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience may also be passed in favour of the humble Petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide the

impugned order dated 09.04.2021, the learned court below

directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.8,000/-

as maintenance to his wife and daughter i.e. respondents no.1

and 2 herein, respectively; and that, the petitioner is also

maintaining his son, who lives with him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

averments made on behalf of the respondent no.1 before the

learned court below regarding the petitioner's monthly income

were not substantiated with adequate proof, and thus, the

impugned order suffers from non-consideration of actual monthly

income of the petitioner, while deciding the quantum of

maintenance payable by him to the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the

respondent no.1, over the previous years, filed countless bogus

and baseless complaints and F.I.Rs against the petitioner. And

that, subsequently that the petitioner and respondents arrived at

an amicable settlement on 06.01.2016, wherein the respondent

admitted that the F.I.Rs filed by her were false and baseless.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

respondent no. 1 is an educated woman, with a Graduation

(3 of 4) [CRLR-550/2021]

Degree in Law and Computer Applications; and that the petitioner

is also taking care of his old aged parents, who are suffering from

serious ailments, which is taking a financial toll on the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajneesh Vs.

Neha & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 324 and submits that the financial

capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses

for his own maintenance, and dependant family members whom

he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be

required to be taken into consideration, and thus, the order

impugned herein suffers from non-consideration of such vital

aspects of the case.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that the petitioner and his family had repeatedly made

demands of dowry in the form of money and other gifts, at

different stages of the marriage, during and after her pregnancy.

And that when her husband was travelling to Jaipur for work,

threats to her life were made by his family, at which stage she

approached the Police Station, Sodala and left her matrimonial

home with her children, to Sri Ganganagar.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the

learned court below has passed the impugned order after duly

appreciating the evidence on record before it and upon

considering the testimonies at length. And that the order for

maintenance was passed after taking into consideration the fact

that the petitioner was holding the post of Lecturer at Jaipur

National University, Jagatpura, Jaipur with a monthly income of

Rs.50,000/-

(4 of 4) [CRLR-550/2021]

10. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the

record of the case, and the judgment cited at the Bar.

11. This Court observes that the learned court below, while

passing the impugned order, has taken into consideration all the

relevant facts, and duly considered them in awarding maintenance

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the respondents no.1 and 2 with the

observation, that the petitioner has admitted that he was earning

a monthly income of Rs. 42,900/- and the mere fact that the wife

was enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan would not mean

that she could maintain herself and her daughter and that other

averments as to the monthly income of respondent no.1 made by

the petitioner were unsubstantiated.

12. This Court, therefore, finds the impugned order to be well

reasoned speaking order, which has been passed after due

appreciation of the facts and material evidence placed on record

before it.

13. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations, this Court does

not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the

learned court below, so as to call for any interference by this

Court.

14. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 154-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)