1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Govind Narayan & another Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1019/2008. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 5th September, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. B.B. Ojha for the petitioners. Mrs.Nirmala Sharma PP for the State. BY THE COURT: This revision petition under section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated15th July, 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Tonk in Criminal Appeal No.4/2008 by which the appeal was dismissed and the order dated 4.5.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Deoli District Tonk has been upheld. Briefly stated the relevant facts for the disposal of the present revision petition are that non-petitioner no.2 Smt. Mathura Devi filed an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, 'the Act') alleging therein that she was widow of Kalyan Bux. Petitioner Govind Narain is the son of Kalyan Bux's first wife. It was also averred that the non-petitioner gave birth to a daughter namely 2 Munni Devi. Subsequently, after her marriage she started living at Jaipur. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was small and he was brought up by her. It was also averred that the petitioner's marriage was arranged by her and non-petitioner no.2 Ashok Kumar is son of Govind Narain. The petitioner and his son who are her step son and grand-son started harassing her and made her life miserable. She claimed maintenance. A reply to the complaint was filed wherein it was stated that the non-petitioner was living with him. It was also stated in the reply that the non-petitioner was not willing to stay with them. The learned trial court recorded evidence produced by both the sides. On behalf of the non- petitioner Smt. Mathura Devi she got examined herself and on behalf of the petitioners they examined themselves and one Radhey Shyam. Learned Magistrate after recording evidence of both the sides and after hearing both the sides vide order dated 4.5.2007 directed each of the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the non-petitioner. The petitioners feeling dis- satisfied with the impugned order dated 4.5.2007 preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Tonk on 15.7.2008, upholding the order passed by the learned trial court. Hence, this revision petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned courts below have not properly appreciated the facts of the case. It is also contended that the non- 3 petitioner was never neglected. It is contended that the allegations regarding harassment etc. made in the complaint are absolutely false. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that the learned courts below have concurrently found that the old lady who is step mother of the petitioner no.1 and step grand- mother of petitioner no.2 has been harassed and ill-treated and in view of the provisions of the Act proper order was passed by the learned trial court which has been maintained by the learned appellate court, therefore, in the matter since no legal point is involved, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the impugned order. It is to be seen that the petitioner no.1 Govind Narayan is the step son and petitioner no.2 Ashok Kumar is grand son of non-petitioner of Smt. Mathura Devi. The grievance of non- petitioner has been that she was neglected and ill-treated and having no source of income was entitled to claim maintenance. The learned trial court in this regard has discussed the evidence brought on record and directed the petitioners to pay maintenance amount vide order dated 4.5.2007. In appeal preferred, the learned appellate court finding that the learned trial court has properly appreciated the entire matter and correctly awarded the maintenance amount, therefore, dismissed the appeal. In the above circumstances, the evidence adduced by the parties in the 4 case is not required to be appreciated afresh. The findings recorded by the learned courts below are concurrent in nature. It does not appear from the perusal of the orders passed by the learned courts below that the evidence in the case either has not been properly appreciated or the learned courts below have not properly considered the provisions of law. The contentions of the learned counsel, in my opinion, are without any substance and, therefore, the same are not liable to be accepted. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J)