Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt.Kesar Bai vs Shanker Lal (2025:Rj-Jd:5906) on 29 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:5906]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1144/2006
Smt. Kesar Bai D/o Bhagwan Lal Ahir, W/o Shyamlal Ahir, R/o
Alipura, Udaipur, at present residing at the house of Ram Lal
Chhinpa, Karni Mata Ka Khera, Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
Shanker Lal S/o Prithviraj Vyas (Brahmin), R/o Jawad, Presently
residing at Tejaji Chowk, Pratapnagar, Chittorgarh.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Pitaliya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
29/01/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife
against the order dated 10.07.2006, passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge No.1, Chittorgarh, in Cr. Revision
No.14/2006, whereby the learned revisional Court allowed the
revision filed by the respondent-husband and set aside the order
dated 03.12.2005, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, No.2, Chittorgarh and also dismissed the application
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner-wife.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-wife filed an
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent-
husband seeking maintenance. The respondent-husband filed
reply to the application. Thereafter statement of the petitioner-
wife was recorded as AW-1 and fifteen documents were exhibited
[2025:RJ-JD:5906] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1144/2006]
in support of her case. The respondent-husband examined five
witnesses on his behalf and exhibited only one document.
The learned trial court after meticulous examination of the
oral as well as documentary evidence, vide order dated
03.12.2005 allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and
awarded maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month in favour of the
petitioner-wife.
Against the order of maintenance, the respondent-husband
preferred a revision before the learned revisional court. The
learned revisional court allowed the revision and set aside the
order of maintenance dated 03.12.2005 passed by the trial court
and also dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Hence, this revision against the order of the revisional court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submits that the
learned revisional court has committed grave error in dismissing
the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by
the trial court. Counsel submits that being a legally wedded wife,
the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance from the respondent-
husband. Counsel further submits that the learned trial court after
due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available
on record has given specific finding that the petitioner is legally
wedded wife of the respondent and therefore, awarded
maintenance in favour of the petitioner-wife, but the learned
revisional court without considering the findings of the learned
trial court, set aside the order of the trial court and also dismissed
the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thus, the order of
revisional court is per se illegal and arbitrary and the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
[2025:RJ-JD:5906] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1144/2006]
Counsel for the respondent-husband submits that the
petitioner is not legally a wedded wife of the respondent and the
respondent has proved this fact by producing cogent evidence.
Thus, learned revisional court has rightly set aside the order of
maintenance passed by the trial court and also rightly dismissed
the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The impugned revisional
order is just and proper and therefore, the same does not require
any interference from this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned revisional order as well as order passed by the trial
court.
From the perusal of the impugned revisional order, it is
apparent that the petitioner has failed to prove the fact that she is
a legally wedded wife of the respondent. The petitioner did not
produce any independent witness to fortify the fact of marriage
solemnized between her and respondent. It was alleged by the
petitioner that after marriage, she and respondent resided at
Udaipur for a period of four years and thereafter, they resided at
Chittorgarh, but the petitioner did not produce any witness before
the courts below, who was residing nearby the house of the
petitioner in Udaipur and Chittorgarh.
It was further held by the revisional court that in the
documents i.e. Ex-P/12 & Ex-P/14, the name of the wife of the
respondent has been mentioned as "Smt. Bhanwari Bai" but these
documents contain the photo of the petitioner. The petitioner tried
to prove these two documents to be false and fabricating by
producing certain documentary evidence. But the revisional court
[2025:RJ-JD:5906] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1144/2006]
held that merely by pasting photos on these two documents, it
does not prove that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent.
Thus, the overall reading of the revisional order, it appears
that learned revisional court has considered each and every aspect
of the matter including the oral and documentary evidence
produced on record and reached to the conclusion that the
petitioner has failed to prove herself as legally wedded wife of the
respondent and accordingly, the revisional court set aside the
order of the trial court and also dismissed the application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C.
This court does not find any illegally and perversity in the
impugned revisional order, which requires interference from this
Court. The impugned revisional order is perfectly justified.
Hence, the revision petition being bereft of any merit is
hereby dismissed.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
33-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
