1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Smt. Bali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.108/2006 Date of Order : 13-1-09 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.CHAUDHARI Mr.Sudhir Saruparia, for petitioner. Mr.P.S.Chundawat for respondent. BY THE COURT: This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 26.10.2005 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Pratapgarh (for short `the revisional court' hereinafter) in Revision No.14/2005, Balu Vs. Smt. Bali & Anr., whereby the order dt. 10.11.2004 passed by ACJM, Pratapgarh (for short `the trial court' hereinafter) in case No.229/1999, Bali vs. Balu granting maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.500/- per month, was set aside. 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh and alleged that she was married to non-petitioner but non-petitioner used to beat her on account of shortage of dowry, her hand was broken and now she is residing with her parents and non-petitioner has contracted “Nata” marriage with Gattu, she has no means of maintenance, whereas non-petitioner has 20 bighas of land and two wells and earns Rs.3,00,000/- per year, hence she may be awarded maintenance. Non-petitioner submitted reply and alleged that petitioner without any information used to go to her parents' house and many times, he tried to make her understand but his in-laws told him that non-petitioner has to live in village Pipalia and when non-petitioner refused, a false case was filed against him; he never beat the petitioner; he has not married again and he is ready to keep her with him, so the petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance. After recording evidence of both the parties, learned trial court vide order 3 dated 10.11.2004 ordered non-petitioner to pay maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from 12.9.1999, the date of presentation of application. Non-petitioner filed revision and the revisional court vide order dated 26.10.2005 accepted the revision and set aside the order of the trial court against which, this petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that non-petitioner has beaten petitioner and ousted her from his house and in such circumstances, the petitioner is living with her parents. He further argued that non-petitioner has married again, so the petitioner is entitled to maintenance and the revisional court has committed error in setting aside the order of the trial court, hence this petition may be accepted and order of the trial court may be restored, whereas learned counsel for non-petitioner submitted that order of revisional court is in accordance with law, hence petition may be dismissed. It is admitted position that petitioner is married wife of non-petitioner and petitioner is living with her 4 parents. The petitioner has alleged that she was beaten by non-petitioner and the non-petitioner has stated in his statement that the petitioner has falsely implicated him and he was acquitted vide judgment Ex.A-1. Thus, it is admitted position that petitioner filed case against the non-petitioner for beating etc. and in that case, no doubt, the non- petitioner has been acquitted but in such circumstances, it cannot be expected from the petitioner to live with non- petitioner. Petitioner and her witnesses have further stated that non-petitioner has married with Gattu. Non-petitioner in his examination-in-chief has stated that petitioner has levelled allegation of “Nata” on him. He has not specifically denied in his examination-in-chief regarding “Nata” with Gattu. He has denied in his cross-examination that Gattu's name appears in electoral roll at serial No.573, whereas his name appears at serial NO.570, but electoral roll contains their names at aforesaid serial numbers. Though he denied the marriage with Gattu and has further denied that he has two children from Gattu but he has not stated this fact in his examination-in-chief and on the contrary, the petitioner and other witnesses have stated in their statements that non- petitioner has married with Gattu, though there is no specific 5 evidence of marriage with Gattu but it seems that non- petitioner is residing with Gattu and when there is apprehension of beating to the petitioner, it is not expected that petitioner will live with non-petitioner. Learned revisional court has committed error in accepting revision petition on these grounds. As far non-petitioner's income is concerned, the non-petitioner himself has produced certificate of income Ex.A-2, which reveals that his annual income is Rs.12,000/- and in such circumstances, the trial court has not committed any error in granting Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the petition of the petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby accepted and the order of the revisional court dated 26.10.2005 is set aside and the order of the trial court dated 10.11.2004 is restored. [KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI],J. m.asif/-