1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 454/2006 (Rajendra Singh Vs. Smt. Meena Kumari Rathore) Date of Order : 06.08.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. I.R.Choudhary for the petitioner. Mr. Rohitash for the respondent. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 3.3.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udaipur (for short 'the family court' hereinafter) whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly allowance of maintenance was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as monthly allowance of maintenance in favour of respondent Meena Kumari Rathore who is wife of the petitioner and Rs.500/- per month in favour of minor son namely Himanshu who is presently residing with the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the judgment and order impugned as 2 also the record of the family court. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent without any sufficient reason has refused to live with the petitioner and this was the averment made in the reply to the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but the family court fell in error in not framing the point for determination with regard to this plea as also the parties led no evidence and therefore, the order impugned is bad. Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and order impugned. It has not been disputed that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and from the loin of the petitioner, son Himanshu born. Thus, the relationship of the respondent as wife and son Himanshu has not been disputed by the petitioner. It has also come in evidence that the petitioner is government employee serving on the post of L.D.C., his salary has also been established before the trial court. In the application, it has categorically been averred by the respondent that after marriage for about six months, she continued to live with the petitioner and from the loin of the petitioner she gave birth to male child namely Himanshu. However, thereafter, there was some dispute between the parties. A compromise took place and in pursuance of the compromise, the respondent again 3 started living with the petitioner as his wife. However, the respondent stated that the petitioner does not want to keep her and therefore, the petitioner and his family members used to assault her and by assaulting her, she was turned out of her matrimonial home. The petitioner is an employee of the State Government in PHED on the post of LDC. The statement of AW- 1 Smt. Meena Kumari finds support from the statement of AW-2 Kishan Singh who also stated that his daughter respondent used to be harassed by his son-in-law and his family members in connection with demand of dowry. His daughter even used to be treated by using abusive language by petitioner and his family members. The income of the petitioner has been stated to be Rs. 5200/- per month. It has also come in evidence that the respondent is not earning anything and is unable to maintain herself and her minor son. Even in the cross-examination, it was stated that after assaulting, his daughter was turned out from the matrimonial home. AW-3 Kuldeep Sharma is neighbour who stated that the respondent is not doing anything and she has not been earning anything, on the contrary, the petitioner is earning having salary of Rs. 6000/- per month. The petitioner himself appeared as NAW-1 and made statement and produced his brother Vikram Singh as NAW-2 and Krishan Kumar Pareekh as NAW-3 who is landlord. On close scrutiny of the statements of witnesses, 4 there is consistent stand of the respondent that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment and used to be given beating and abused by using abusive language and was ultimately turned out of her matrimonial home on the ground that her husband does not want to keep her. With this evidence, it cannot be said that the respondent without any sufficient reason has deserted the petitioner. The compelling circumstances speak from the evidence. In this view of the matter, the family court was justified in granting monthly allowance of maintenance in favour of the respondent and her minor son. The amount of maintenance also cannot be said to be disproportionate or excessive in any manner. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp