IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT SHANTI LAL VS. SMT. SITA S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.1171 Of 2007 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated September 24, 2009 of Judge, Family Court, Ajmer in criminal case No. 136 of 2006 whereby the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent was partly allowed and she was allowed maintenance in the amount of Rs. 1,000/- for herself and Rs. 300/- each for daughter and son total Rs. 1600/-. Date of Order : February 2, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. J.P.Gupta, for the petitioner None present for the respondent. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Shanti Lal challenging the order dated September 24, 2009 of Judge, Family Court, Ajmer in criminal case No. 136 of 2006 whereby the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent was partly allowed and she was allowed maintenance in the amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 300/- each for daughter and son total Rs. 1600/-. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner stating therein that she entered into marriage with the petitioner on June 18, 1998 according to the Hindu customs. In the marriage the father of the respondent gave dowry beyond his capacity. When the respondent went to the house of husband, her in-laws committed cruelty with her and began beating her. With the cohabitation of the petitioner, the respondent gave birth to two children namely Priya and Daman who are aged 6 and 4 years. Due to the cruel behaviour of the petitioner and his family members on January 31, 2003 the respondent took poison but the petitioner and his family members did not care her. The father of the respondent got treated her. The petitioner and his family members thereafter thrown the respondent out of the house along with her children and since then she is living with her father. It was alleged that it is the legal duty of the petitioner to maintain the respondent and children. It was prayed that it is just that Rs. 1500/- be awarded to her as maintenance and Rs. 150/- for fare to come at the court from Beawar may also be awarded. The petitioner is a driver and his income is Rs. 3500/- per month and he has no liability as his father is a Government servant on the post of Hand Pump Mistri. Earlier the respondent filed an application seeking maintenance for herself and her children on July 4, 2003 which was registered as Case No. 177 of 2003 and the same was compromised application was dismissed due to compromise on January 15, 2006. It was given out that as per the compromise the petitioner took the respondent to his house but after keeping her with him for 15-20 days, he committed crulety and on May 20, 2006 he thrown out her along with her children and threatened not to come back at his house otherwise he would kill her. Then the respondent came back at her father's house and she is facing the difficulty for maintaining herself and her children. The respondent in these circumstances filed application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. praying therein maintenance in the amount of Rs. 1500/- along with Rs. 150/- for each date. The petitioner filed reply to the application and admitted the fact of marriage and birth of children but denied the other allegations and averments made by the non-petitioner in the application. It was stated that the non-petitioner herself earns Rs. 1000 per month from the work of tailoring. The petitioner stated that he does not know driving any vehicle. He is dependent on his father. He is ready and willing to keep the respondent with him. In support of her version the respondent got examined six witnesses. The petitioner examined five witnesses. The Judge Family Court after hearing both the parties allowed the application vide order dated September 24, 2007 and awarded Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent and Rs. 300+300 = 600 to the children totaling Rs. 1600/- per month as maintenance. Hence this revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the non-petitioner is living separately and the marriage of the parties was solemnized way back in the year 1995 and they lived together upto 5 years after the marriage and after 5 years without any reasonable cause the non-petitioner left the house of the petitioner and has lodged the criminal case against the petitioner. In criminal case on the instance of Court the conciliation was taken place and the non-petitioner started the matrimonial life with the petitioner but again after 6-7 months she left the house of the petitioner without any reasonable causer and now she is living in his parents house since April 2006. The learned counsel argued that it is crystal clear that without any sufficient reason the non-petitioner refused to live with the petitioner and in view of sub-section 4 of section 125 Cr.P.C. she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner offered to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him but she refused to live with him and the trial court failed to consider any ground of refusal stated by the non- petitioner nd erroneously passed the order of maintenance in favour of the non-petitioner without giving any findings that as to whether she is having just ground for not living with the petitioner. The trial court has not considered the important aspect of the case as to whether the non-petitioner is having any sufficient reason for not living with the petitioner only on the basis of the fact that criminal case under section 498 A is pending against the petitioner and only on the basis of pendency of that case and that the non – petitioner had sufficient reason for not living with the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the above case was falsely registered against the petitioner and the non- petitioner arrived into compromise in that case but later on without any sufficient reason left the company of the petitioner and without any sufficient reason the non- petitioner has deprived the petitioner for restitution of his conjugal rights. 4. The learned counsel for the non- petitioner 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 granted maintenance to the respondent in the amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 300/- each for daughter and son total Rs. 1600/-. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. 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 and granted Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent and Rs. 300 each to son and daughter. This order of the Judge Family Court cannot be said to be perverse. The order passed by the Judge Family Court is perfectly legal and not contrary to law. The Judge Family Court has not committed any illegality in passing the same. Thus the impugned order does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition being devoid of merit stands rejected. As the main petition has been dismissed the stay application also stands dismissed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/