Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sundar Lal vs Geeta on 7 May, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1038/2022
Sundar Lal S/o Sh. Aasu Ram, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Sansi,
R/o Rangmahal, Teh. Suratgarh Dist. Sri Ganganagar. (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Geeta W/o Sundar Lal, D/o Surja Ram, B/c Sansi, R/o
Chak 3 Dd Teh. Gharsana Dist. Sri Ganganagar.
2. Praveen S/o Sundar Lal, Minor Through Natural Guardian
Mother Repondent No. 1 Geeta W/o Sundar Lal D/o Surja
Ram, B/c Sansi, R/o Chak 3 Dd Teh. Gharsana Dist. Sri
Ganganagar.
3. Elesh S/o Sundar Lal, Minor Through Natural Guardian
Mother Repondent No. 1 Geeta W/o Sundar Lal D/o Surja
Ram, B/c Sansi, R/o Chak 3 Dd Teh. Gharsana Dist. Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nand Lal Hirania
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, P. P.
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
07/05/2022
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Code') the petitioner has prayed that various sentences awarded
to the petitioner vide separate orders dated 30.10.2021 passed by
Judicial Magistrate, Gharsana, District Sri Ganagnagar (hereinafter
referred to as the 'trial Court') in nine different applications filed
under the provisions of Protection of Women From Domestic
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1038/2022]
Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2005')
read with Section 125 of the Code, be ordered to run concurrently.
2. Brief facts relevant for the present purposes are that
pursuant to application filed under Section 20 of the Act of 2005
by order dated 11.03.2016, the petitioner was ordered to pay
Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent -
complainant. On account of financial constraints, the petitioner
could not pay the amount for which applications for recovery of
the amount were filed.
3. The trial Court vide separate orders dated 30.10.2021 took
up the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code and sentenced
the petitioner to undergo one month's imprisonment for each of
the failures to pay the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.5000/-.
4. While arguing that the proceedings under Section 125 of the
Code cannot be invoked for the purpose of enforcing compliance of
an order under the Act of 2005, learned counsel for the petitioner
alternatively prayed that nine sentences awarded to the petitioner
be ordered to run concurrently.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner has
deliberately not paid the amount to the complainant in order to
harass her and argued that each breach has to be considered as a
separate offence under the provisions of Act of 2005/Code of
Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the sentences shall run one
after another.
6. It is to be noted that maximum sentence awarded to the
petitioner is one month and the petitioner has already undergone
about four months sentence out of the total nine months.
7. Having regard to the nature of breach, particularly the fact
that petitioner's failure to pay maintenance of Rs.5000/- to the
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1038/2022]
respondent - complainant appears to be on account of financial
constraints which is evident from the fact that the petitioner has
served sentence of about 4 months, this Court, in the interest of
justice, deems it expedient to order all the substantive sentences
awarded by the trial Court vide order dated 30.10.2021 to run
concurrently instead of consecutively, in light of Division Bench
judgment in the case of Arjun Ram vs State of Rajasthan
[2016(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 346].
8. The petition is allowed in above terms. The petitioner shall
be released on 13.05.2022.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
255-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
