Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bhagwan Sahai vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 26 February, 2020
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2575/2012
Bhagwan Sahai S/o Shri Chhaju Meena, R/o Dhani Kaiki, Village
Badh Sawai Pura, Tehsil & District Dausa (Raj.).
----Accused/Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.
2. Panchi Devi D/o Hardeva, by caste Meena, Resident of Village
Nizampura, Police Station Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa
(Raj.).
----Non-petitioners
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Meena
For State : Mr. F.R. Meena, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
26/02/2020
1. Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition aggrieved by order dated 15.06.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bandikui whereby, Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was rejected and order dated 21.05.2011 passed by Gram Nyayalaya, Dausa whereby, application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was married to non-petitioner No.2 in the year 1972. Non-petitioner left the house in the year 1981 and went away with (Downloaded on 02/03/2020 at 09:16:32 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2575/2012] Chothmal. It is contended that divorce took place according to the customs in the year 1982. The petition has been filed after a lapse of 18 years and no justification is given in the petition for the inordinate delay.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal, AIR 2011 Supreme Court 479, which was a case where maintenance application was filed after 12 years and burden was on wife to satisfactorily explain the delay.
4. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner contends that meager amount of Rs.2,000/- is awarded as maintenance. There was no issue with regard to the respondent living in adultery. Court below has passed the order after considering the evidence on record. Petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision and second revision is barred.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. Admittedly, from the documents it is revealed that respondent has not re-married hence, as per Section 125 Cr.P.C. she is entitled to maintenance. There was no issue with regard to the respondent living in adultery and the Court after perusing the evidence has come to the conclusion that respondent is entitled to maintenance and has awarded meager amount of Rs.2,000/- as maintenance. Taking note of the fact that petitioner is employed in Bank and petitioner has already availed remedy of revision. Sub- Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. bars filing of second revision and recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be taken only in exceptional cases. The present case is not of exceptional nature, thus no ground is made out for entertaining the misc. petition, the same is dismissed.
(Downloaded on 02/03/2020 at 09:16:32 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2575/2012]
7. Stay application stands disposed of.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Simple Kumawat /57 (Downloaded on 02/03/2020 at 09:16:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)