Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Deepak @ Vishnu Chand vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 6 March, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 4797 / 2015
Deepak @ Vishnu Chand son of Shri Ramji Lal, by caste Brahmin,
resident of Old Vegetable Market, Karauli, District Karauli presently
resident of behind Kamala Nehru Nagar. Uma Colony, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
Non-Applicant-Petitioner
Versus
1.State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
2.Shrimati Meera Wife of Shri Deepak alia Vishanu Chand, by caste Brahmin, resdient of Sapotra, District Karauli (Rajasthan).
3.Vaibhav son of ) Both minors thorough Shri Deepak alias ) their natural guardian Vishanu Chand, ) mother, Smt. Meera W/o
4.Shubham Son of ) Shri Deepak alia Shri Deepak alia ) Vishanu Chand, R/o Vishanu Chand. ) Sapotra, Dist. Karauli.
Applicant-Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment 06/03/2017
1. Petitioner has preferred this miscellaneous petition aggrieved by order dated 11.02.2015 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Karauli & order dated 14.08.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli whereby the maintenance application filed by the respondent No. 2 to 4 was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay 27,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4797/2015]
2. It is contended that the parties is living apart for more than five years and the possibility of a settlement can be arrived at if the parties are brought before the Court. It is contended that the Court below has awarded the maintenance from the date of filing of the application without assigning any reason and the revisional Court has while observing that the Court has not assigned any reason yet it has upheld the order passed by the trial Court.
3. I have considered the contentions Section 397 (3) of Cr. PC. bars filing of second revision by the same person who has earlier approached the Court by filing revision petition and only in rarest of rare case the High Court can invoke inherent powers.
4. From perusal of the order it is revealed that the petitioner is employed with the Government in the Ayurveda Department and his salary was Rs. 53,000/- when the Court decided the case. The petitioner's wife and children were not having any source of income, therefore, the Court below has not committed any error in awarding Rs.27,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of the application.
5. No case is made out for invoking the inherent powers.
6. The miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI)J. Amit/7