Nahar Singh vs Laxmi Kanwar
2022 Latest Caselaw 11581 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3196/2022

Nahar Singh S/o Bhal Singh, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Rajput R/ o Sarayan Tehsil Taranagar Dist. Churu

----Petitioner Versus Laxmi Kanwar D/o Bhanwar Singh W/o Nahar Singh, B/c Rajput R/o Sarayan Tehsil Tarangar Dist. Churu Presently Residing At Ajeetpura Tehsil Bhadra Dist. Hanumangarh

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manjeet For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Bhati, PP

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

16/09/2022

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 04.05.2022, passed

by Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter

referred to as the 'trial Court') in six different applications filed

under the provisions of Protection of Women From Domestic

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 03.11.2015, the petitioner was ordered to pay

Rs.6000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent -

complainant. On account of financial constraints, the petitioner

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-3196/2022]

could not pay the amount for which applications for recovery of

the amount were filed.

3. The trial Court vide separate orders dated 04.05.2022 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.6000/-.

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 five months sentence out of the total six months.

7. Having regard to the nature of breach, particularly the fact

that petitioner's failure to pay maintenance of Rs.6000/- to the

respondent - complainant appears to be on account of financial

constraints which is evident from the fact that the petitioner has

served sentence of about 5 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 04.05.2022 to run

concurrently instead of consecutively, in light of Division Bench

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-3196/2022]

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 20.09.2022.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 193-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)