IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT RAJESH SHARMA VS. SMT. SAROJ SHARMA AND ANR. S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.779 Of 2007 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated June 27, 2007, of Judge, Family Court No.2, Jaipur in criminal case No. 103 of 2002 whereby the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the non-petitioners was accepted and maintenance @ Rs. 2000 was awarded to non-petitioner No.1and @ Rs. 1,000 was awarded to the non- petitioner No.2 with effect from March 27, 2002. Date of Order : February 17, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mrs. Saroj Sharma for Mr. Ajeet Bhandari , for the petitioner Mr. R.D.Tripathi for the respondents. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Rajesh Sharma, against the order dated June 27, 2007, of Judge, Family Court No.2, Jaipur in criminal case No. 103 of 2002 whereby the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the non-petitioners was accepted and maintenance @ Rs. 2000 was awarded to non-petitioner No.1 and @ Rs. 1,000 was awarded to the non-petitioner No.2 with effect from March 27, 2002. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the non- petitioners 1 and 2 filed application under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner and non-petitioner were married in accordance with Hindu customs on March 10, 1997 in Jaipur. Out of the said wedlock one son and one daughter were born. It is alleged that the non- petitioner No.1 is the only daughter of his father and the petitioner harassed non-petitioner no.1 to bring cash in dowry and it was alleged that when for the first time she became pregnant, she was thrown out of the house and after the period of 8 months the petitioner brought her to his house. The non- petitioner No.1 suffered fracture due to the acts of the petitioner. Allegations of ill-treatment by the petitioner were made in the application and it was submitted that she was thrown out along with her daughter. The non-petitioners prayed for Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance. The petitioner submitted reply and denied the allegations made in the application and it was submitted that the petitioner is already ready and willing to keep the non-petitioner No.1 with him. One of the son is living with the petitioner. The non-petitioner no.1 has herself left the house of the petitioner. The allegations of ill- treatment were denied and it was pleaded that due to the accident the petitioner had suffered fracture of both of his legs and was operated upon. After hearing both the parties, the Judge Family Court vide his order dated June 27, 2007 allowed the application and directed for maintenance to the non- petitioner No.1 @ Rs. 2,000 and to the non-petitioner No.2 @ Rs. 1,000 per month with effect from March 27,2002 and directed for paying the amount in 24 installments. Hence this revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Judge Family Court allowed the application on the ground that the petitioner ill- treated the non-petitioner. The petitioner is ready to keep her wife. One of the son is living with the petitioner. The non-petitioner no.1 has herself left the house of the petitioner. The allegations of ill-treatment were denied and it was submitted that due to the accident the petitioner had suffered fracture of both of his legs and was operated upon. Thus the order of the Family Court allowing the application deserves to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the non- petitioners opposed the arguments of the petitioner and submitted that the order passed by the Judge Family court is just and proper and there is no illegality in it so as to call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. The Judge family court has rightly allowed the application of the non- petitioners under section 125 Cr.P.C. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the Judge Family Court. The Judge Family Court has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The order of the Judge Family Court is just and proper and there is no infirmity or illegality in the same. 6. Thus, the revision petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to implement the order of the court below within a period of 15 days after receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. But so far as arrear is concerned he will pay the full amount within a period of four months from today. As the main petition has been dispossed the stay application also stands dispossed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/