1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Badri Lal Gurjar Vs. Yogesh Kumari & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1543/2009) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. Date of Order :- 18th November, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Naseemuddin Quazi, for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.03.2009, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Kota, whereby the learned Magistrate had directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,200/- per month to the respondent No.1, Yogesh Kumari, and Rs.800/- per month to the respondent No.2, Rimjhim, by way of interim maintenance under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 03.08.2009, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (Women's Atrocities and Dowry) Cases, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 19.03.2009. Mr. Naseemuddin Quazi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the respondent No.1 was living with her father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. None of them had committed any act of domestic violence against her. She is unjustified in claiming that they had thrown her out of the matrimonial home. Moreover, the petitioner happens to be an old man who does not have any source of income. Hence, he is unable to pay the interim maintenance as directed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Judge. Lastly, the respondent No.1, herself, is a 2 teacher by profession. She is, thus, able to earn sufficient amount for herself and her child. Therefore, according to the learned counsel both the impugned orders should be quashed and set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. A bare perusal of the impugned orders clearly reveal that according to the petitioner, himself, he owns 1.54 hectors of irrigated land. He has admitted this fact in his own statement. Thus, he does have a source of income from the agricultural land. Moreover, the petitioner has not been able to produce an iota of evidence to prove the fact that the respondent No.1 is working as a teacher. Therefore, the plea raised by the learned counsel about the petitioner's inability to maintain the respondents is unacceptable. Considering the fact that it is the petitioner's moral and legal duty to look after his widowed daughter, considering the fact that he owns irrigated land, considering the fact that the respondent No.1 does not have any means for looking after herself and her child, the learned Magistrate and the learned Judge were justified in directing the petitioner to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly. In this view of the matter, there is neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the impugned orders. The petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-