1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT SHIVRAJ GANGWAL VS. SMT. CHAMPA S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.1578 Of 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated August 28, 2008 of Judge, Family Court Ajmer in criminal case No. 126 of 2007 whereby the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent was allowed and she was awarded the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2000 per month from the date of passing of the order dated August 28, 2008. Date of Order : March 20, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA None present for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Gangwar for the respondent. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated August 28, 2008 of Judge, Family Court Ajmer in criminal case No. 126 of 2007 whereby the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent was allowed and she was awarded the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2000 per month from the date of passing of the order 2 dated August 28, 2008. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent Smt. Champa filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner before the Family Court Ajmer seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2500 per month. The marriage between the respondent and the petitioner took place in the year 1992 and Gauna ceremony took place in the year 1994. After sometime the family members of the petitioner harassed the respondent for dowry and in this respect the respondent lodged FIR on March 1, 2006. The petitioner submitted reply to the maintenance application and denied the allegations levelled against him and further submitted that the respondent herself has deserted the petitioner and she was not ready to live with the petitioner without any reasonable cause. 3. The Family Court after hearing both the parties allowed the application under 3 section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and awarded the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2000 per month from the date of passing of the order. 3. On March 9, 2009 in the presence of the counsel for the petitioner the case was ordered to be listed for final hearing on March 17, 2009. Thus it is clear that in his presence the orders for final hearing was passed. No-body appeared on behalf of the petitioner on March 17, 2009 when the case was listed for final hearing. The matter was adjourned for final hearing today. Today also nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent prayed for taking the case today for final hearing. In these circumstances the matter is heard in absence of the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Mr. Sanjay Gangwar, appeared on behalf of the respondent stated that the 4 order passed by the Family Court is just and proper as only Rs. 2,000/- were granted as maintenance from the date of the order passed by the Family Court. The petitioner is a Government servant and is Teacher and is also having agricultural land. In these circumstances in my opinion the maintenance amount in the amount of Rs. 2,000 per month is not excessive which is also from the date of passing of the order by the Family Court. Thus there is no infirmity or illegality in passing the order of maintenance by the Family Court. No interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction. 5. The revision petition is rejected being devoid of merit. As the main petition has been disposed, the stay application also stands disposed. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/