SBCrMiscPet No.53/08- Madan Lal v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order:12.05.2009 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ::: O R D E R Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan & others S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.53 OF 2008 ::: Date of order: 12th May, 2009 ::: P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI Mr R.S. Chundawat, for the petitioner Ms Chanderlekha, Public Prosecutor Mr D.S. Udawat, for the respondents BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. The respondents filed an application under sec.125 CrPC in the trial court and vide order dated 08.8.2006 trial court awarded Rs.1000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.700/- each to respondents No.2 and 3 as maintenance from the date of filing of the application. This order was upheld by the revisional court vide order dated 08.01.2007, against which this petition has been filed. SBCrMiscPet No.53/08- Madan Lal v. State of Raj. & ors Date of order:12.05.2009 2 of 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has committed error in awarding excessive maintenance from the date of filing of claim petition instead of from date of passing of the order and further submitted that respondent No.1 is living in adultery; hence, petition may be accepted. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the orders passed by the trial court and revisional court are in accordance with law, hence, petition may be dismissed. The trial court has awarded maintenance from the date of filing of the application, which is in accordance with law and no specific reasons are to be assigned for awarding maintenance from the date of application. As far charge of adultery is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner has not pleaded in trial court that respondent No.1 was living in adultery. There is no evidence to this effect, hence, it can not be presumed that respondent No.1 is living in adultery and on this count she is not entitled to maintenance. As far amount of maintenance is concerned, awarded amount is not excessive looking to rising cost of living. Hence, this petition is dismissed. [KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI],J. mma