Ramchandra vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 7837 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 192/2020

Ramchandra S/o Shri Jai Narayan Panchariya, Aged About 31 Years, Pushp Garden, Panchariya Colony, In Front Of Soni Market, Udasar, Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through P.p.

2. Smt. Mamta W/o Shri Ram Chandra Panchariya D/o Hari Kishan Joshi, Brahmano Ka Mohalla, In Front Of 5 Number Tubewell, Ward No. 19, Sujandedsar, Bikaner.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3559/2021 Ramchandra S/o Sh. Jai Narayan Panchariya, Aged About 32 Years, Pushp Garden, Panchariya Colony, In Front Of Soni Market, Udasar, Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Smt. Mamta W/o Sh. Ram Chandra Panchariya D/o Hari Kishan Joshi, Bhamano Ka Mohalla, In Front Of 5 Number Tubewell, Ward No. 19, Sujandesar, Bikaner.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. D.S. Thind
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. A.R. Choudhary PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 23/05/2022 Pronounced on 25/05/2022

1. Though the matter (revision petition No.192/2020) was

listed before this Court in regard to service of respondent No.2-

(2 of 6) [CRLR-192/2020]

wife, but the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband insisted

that the matter may be heard finally at this stage, without service

upon the respondent No.2.

2. Ordinarily, the Court could not have accepted such a request,

but on a perusal of the record as well as upon hearing the

preliminary submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the requirement of service upon respondent No.2 was not felt

necessary, as on merits, the matter was tilting in favour of the

respondent No.2-wife.

3. As regards Misc. Petition No.3559/2021, the previous

order-sheets shows that Mr. D.K. Gaur, learned counsel appeared

on behalf of the respondent No.2-wife. However, today on

23.05.2022, when the matter was listed, no one has appeared on

behalf of respondent No.-2 wife, even in the second round.

4. The present criminal revision petition No.192/2020 (initially

filed as criminal misc. petition) and criminal misc. petition

No.3559/2021 have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

Revision Pet. No.192/2020:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the order impugned dated 11.12.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Bikaner in Criminal Misc. Case No.259/2017 granting maintenance to the respondent No.2 to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month may kindly be quashed and set aside"

Criminal Misc. Petition No.3559/2021:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the

(3 of 6) [CRLR-192/2020]

proceedings pending before the Family Court No.2, Bikaner in Criminal Case No.10/2020 (Mamta Vs. Ramchandra) including order dated 24.02.2021 may kindly be quashed and set aside and in alternative the learned court below may kindly be directed not to arrest the petitioner till the petitioner's application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is decided."

5. As the record of the case would reveal, the matter pertains

to a matrimonial dispute, wherein the respondent No.2-wife on

count of the alleged ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of

her husband (present petitioner) and her in-laws, in connection

with the alleged demand of dowry, is living separately, and thus,

by filing an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the

learned court below, she had sought an appropriate and adequate

amount of monthly maintenance; the same has been awarded by

the learned court below vide the impugned order dated

11.12.2019; against such determination of the monthly

maintenance amount and the consequential order passed by the

learned court below, owing to the default on the part of the

petitioner-husband in payment of arrears of the maintenance

amount, the petitioner-husband has approached this Hon'ble Court

by filing the present petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submitted that

even earlier an ex parte order dated 27.04.2019 was passed in

favour of the respondent No.2-wife by the learned court below, on

her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., while granting her a

monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.6,000/-; against which the

present petitioner-husband preferred a criminal misc. petition

(4 of 6) [CRLR-192/2020]

bearing No.3876/2019, whereupon this Hon'ble Court, while

quashing and setting aside the said ex parte order of

maintenance, remanded the matter back to the learned court

below, for deciding the same afresh.

6.1 Learned counsel further submitted that after remand of the

matter, in a short span of time, the learned court below heard the

matter finally and vide the impugned order dated 11.12.2019, the

learned court below increased the amount of monthly

maintenance to be payable by the petitioner-husband to the

respondent No.2-wife, from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, which is on

a much higher side, and thus, unreasonable, looking to the

financial position of the petitioner-husband, and more particularly,

in view of the established fact that the respondent No.2-wife

herself is earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- through domestic

stitching.

6.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent No.2-

wife is living separately of her own free will, and in fact, she has

deserted the petitioner-husband, and therefore, she did not have

any right to maintenance, as awarded by the learned court below.

6.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the learned court

below has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner-husband is

earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month, and thus, the very pedestal, on

which the maintenance amount in question has been awarded, is

wrong, as the claim pertaining thereto was not supported by

placing any cogent evidence on record before the learned court

below.

(5 of 6) [CRLR-192/2020]

6.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent No.2-

wife has in fact deprived the petitioner-husband of his conjugal

rights.

6.5 Learned counsel further submitted that apart from the

above, even the learned court below vide the impugned order

dated 24.02.2021, which is under challenge before this Court in

the above-numbered criminal misc. petition, has proceeded to

order issuance of a standing warrant of arrest against the

petitioner-husband; with the further stipulation that in the said

warrant, a mention shall be made that in case the petitioner-

husband pays the outstanding amount towards arrears of

maintenance immediately, which is to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-,

for the period from 06.04.2017 to 30.11.2019, he shall not be

arrested in pursuance of the said warrant; however, upon his

failure to do so, the said warrant of arrest shall be executed

against him.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner-husband as

well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the firm

opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the learned court below

is perfectly justified, as the prolonged matrimonial dispute has

resulted into the respondent No.2-wife living separately; the

learned court below has also recorded a conclusion that she was

not having any definite and regular source of income. The

evidence given by the respondent-wife was also not controverted,

in cross-examination, by the petitioner-husband; the conjugal

rights is altogether a different aspect, for which there has to be

harmony between the couple; moreover, the petitioner-husband

also could not substantially point out as to what efforts have been

(6 of 6) [CRLR-192/2020]

made by him so as to bring in such harmony, to support his claim

pertaining to the conjugal rights, and thus, the same cannot

impact the conclusion arrived at by the learned court below,

regarding the determination of monthly maintenance to the

respondent No.2-wife, as done vide the impugned order dated

11.12.2019. As regards the impugned order dated 24.02.2021

also, this Court is of the opinion that the learned court below has

proceeded to pass such an order of penal consequence, only for

an effective implementation of the order of grant of maintenance,

as well as on count of failure on the part of the petitioner-husband

in regard to payment of the outstanding amount towards arrears

of monthly maintenance. This is more so when, the learned court

below has clearly mentioned in the penal order dated 24.02.2021

that in case the petitioner-husband immediately makes the

payment of the outstanding amount towards the arrears of

maintenance amount, the standing warrant of arrest issued

against him shall not be executed.

8. In view of the above, this Court finds that the factual as well

as legal matrix considered by the learned court below while

passing the impugned orders dated 11.12.2019 and 24.02.2021

does not suffer from any legal infirmity, so as to call for any

interference.

9. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All

pending applications also stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)