Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Durgesh Bhati vs Rekha & Ors on 15 May, 2017
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 374 / 2017
Durgesh Bhati S/o Gamma Ram Bhati, Aged About 38 Years, By
Caste Ghanchi, Resident of Village Mandia, Tehsil Pali District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rekha D/o Durgaram, By Caste Ghanchi, Resident of 25 Tanko
Ka Bas, Pali (Rajasthan)
2. Anshu S/o Durgesh (minor) Through His Mother Rekha D/o
Durgaram, By Caste Ghanchi, Resident of 25 Tanko Ka Bas, Pali
(Rajasthan)
3. State of Rajasthan.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.C. Joshi
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 15/05/2017 Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act 1984 against impugned order dated 1st of February 2017, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Pali (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby learned trial Court has granted total maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the private respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of application, i.e. 17.05.2012.
Facts, in brief, are that respondent No.1 wife filed an application claiming maintenance for herself and son from petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court (2 of 4) [CRLR-374/2017] stating therein about solemnization of her marriage with petitioner and birth of respondent No.2 out of the wedlock. It was averred that behaviour of husband and his family members was cruel and she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. The efforts made for reconciliation proved abortive and the respondents - wife and son were left to live in distress. The application further recited the lavish life of husband with huge income with the prayer for maintenance.
In support of his application, respondent No.1 wife Rekha appeared in witness box herself as AW1 and one Durgaram as AW2 was also examined besides documentary evidence Ex.1 to
33. However, no evidence was tendered by petitioner-husband in his defence.
Learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and examining the matter, vide order dated 1st of February 2017 has found respondent No.1 wife Rekha entitled for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month and respondent No.2 son Anshu entitled for maintenance of Rs.3,000/-per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
There remains no quarrel that petitioner being husband of first respondent and father of second respondent is legally and (3 of 4) [CRLR-374/2017] socially bound to maintain them. It is his pious obligation to maintain the private respondents but he has become totally ignorant towards them. He has not even taken care to defend his case by adducing evidence in the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court, upon consideration of the matter in entirety, has found the private respondents entitled for maintenance and quantified the same moderately by the order impugned. As regards awarding maintenance from the date of order, suffice it to observe that law mandates awarding of maintenance allowance from the date of order with a discretion to the Court to reckon maintenance from the date of order or anterior to the same, which may be from the date of application laid by wife. As the learned trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously by following the mandate of law in grant of maintenance to the private respondents anterior to the date of order, the said order cannot be faulted. Furthermore, apparently there is no reason to infer that it is a case wherein learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has committed any manifest error of law warranting interference in exercise of revisional revision of this Court. In my opinion, the quantum of maintenance, determined by learned trial Court, cannot be categorized as excessive or exorbitant in the present era of inflation. Learned trial Court has, in fact, moderately assessed the quantum of maintenance.
In this view of the matter, in my opinion, learned trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order and I (4 of 4) [CRLR-374/2017] am satisfied that the impugned order is neither perverse nor the same is contrary to law requiring interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
Resultantly, the petition fails and same is hereby dismissed summarily.
(P.K. Lohra), J.
a.asopa/-