Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rana Ram Veera vs Payal on 23 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-1615/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1615/2019
Rana Ram Veera S/o Late Shri Teja Ram, Aged About 33 Years,
By Caste Sain, Permanent R/o Village And Post Pochhina, Dist.
Jaisalmer (Raj.). Pin 345001. Present Address - 496 Mof C/o 32
Wing C/o 56 APO, Air Force Station Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Pin
342001.
----Petitioner
Versus
Payal W/o Rana Ram D/o Girdhari Lal, By Caste Sain, R/o
18/620, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rana Ram Veera (petitioner in
person)
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Shailendra Kala, with
Mr. Anuj Kala
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
23/05/2022
This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 19(4) of the
Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.
against the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No.24/2019
(182/2017) whereby the learned court below has allowed the
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner, present in person, submits that he is a
Sergeant in Indian Air force.
The petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pooja Gaur Vs. Umit @
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 08:51:37 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-1615/2019]
Pinky Patel reported in (2016) 3 DMC 194, the petitioner has
referred Para 7 & 8 of the judgment, which reproduced hereunder:
"7. On the basis of the evidence, principally on the basis of
admissions made by the petitioner as witnesses following
interferences may be drawn:
1) The petitioner has failed to prove that she was
subjected to dowry harassment.
2) She also failed to prove that she was expelled from her
matrimonial home. On the contrary, it has been proved
that she left her matrimonial home of her own accord.
3) She is suffering from some form of mental illness for
which she has undergone treatment.
4) She had instituted cases under Sections 498 A and 406
of the IPC against the respondent and the respondent has
been acquitted of the offence under Section 498 A of the
IPC.
8. In aforesaid circumstances, learned trial Court was justified in
holding that the petitioner is not entitled to stay away from her
husband and claim maintenance."
The petitioner has taken this Court towards the acquittal
under Sections 498-A & 406 IPC vide order dated 14.07.2021. The
petitioner submits that since there was an acquittal, therefore, the
aforequoted precedent law is applicable, and thus, he is not liable
to pay the maintenance. The petitioner further submits that he is
getting the monthly income of Rs.55,000/-.
The petitioner also submits that the arrears have created
financial difficulties to him and he has a joint family, which he has
to maintain, which are also not plausible reasons sufficient to deny
the maintenance to the wife and daughter.
Learned counsel for the respondent-wife opposes the
submissions.
(Downloaded on 25/05/2022 at 08:51:37 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-1615/2019]
This Court finds that the precedent law cited by the
petitioner is not applicable in the present case because the
acquittal of the petitioner is only by giving him benefit of doubt.
On reading of the judgment, it comes out that there was a
consistency in the statements of the witnesses and it is only on
count of certain minor discrepancies, the benefit of doubt has
been given to the petitioner.
However, this Court did not wish to delve into the merits of
the case, but is of the firm opinion that once the benefit of doubt
has been enjoyed, then the petitioner is not entitled to claim that
he is not liable to pay the maintenance to the wife and the
daughter.
In the present times, when the education itself is very costly
and the daily life requires a respectable amount, the denial of
maintenance to the wife and the daughter cannot be justified. The
submission made by the petitioner that the matter be remanded
back is also of no consequence because the income is admitted
and the quantum is justified as only his liability of the
maintenance is Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Rs.5,000/- to the
daughter, whereas the petitioner is admittedly earning monthly
income of about Rs.55,000/-.
In view of the above, no interference in the present petition
is called for and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below
be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
118-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
