CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS 305 of 2003 on 5 December 2002

O R D E R

1. S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.305/2003 (Babu Lal Vs. Smt. Kamla)

2. S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.499/2005 (Babu Lal Vs. Smt. Kamla)

3. S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.878/2004 (Smt.Kamla Vs. Babu Lal)

against the judgment dt. 5.12.2002 passed bylearned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track)Rajsamand in Cr. Revision Nos. 5/02 and 6/02.learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track)Rajsamand in Cr. Revision Nos. 5/02 and 6/02.

Date of Order

::

16.1.2007

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA, J.

Mr.Pankaj Bohra on behalf of

Mr.Ravi Bhansali, for the petitioner.

Mr.Sandeep Saruparia, for the respondent.

Since these three misc. petitions arise out of one and same judgment dated 5.12.2002 passed by learned AdditionalSessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in criminal revision Nos.5/2002 (Babu Lal Vs. Smt. Kamla) and 6/2002 (Smt. Kamla vs.

Babu Lal), therefore, these misc. petitions are decided by thiscommon order.

By S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.305/2003, thepetitioner has challenged the order of learned Additional SessionsJudge whereby he has dismissed the revision petition filed bypetitioner. Another misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beingS.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.499/2005 has also been filed byBabu Lal challenging the same judgment whereby the revisionpetition filed by Smt.Kamla for enhancement of maintenance waspartly allowed and the order of learned Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Div.) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand dated8.3.2000 was modified to the extent that non-petitioner Babu Lalshall pay the maintenance of Rs.250/- to the petitioner Smt.Kamlafrom the date of filing application. Third misc. petition beingS.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.878/2004 has been filed by Smt.Kamla for enhancement of maintenance allowance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Babu Lal statesthat Smt.Kamla is not married wife of Babu Lal. On the contrary,she was legally wedded wife of one Ramesh Chandra from whom she never got any decree of divorce. He also states that she wasliving in adultery. Therefore, she is not entitled for maintenanceas claimed by her and awarded by the learned courts below. It isfurther stated that learned courts below also failed to considerthat an FIR was lodged by Smt.Kamla against Babu under Section498-A and 363 IPC and challan was filed after investigation butthereafter, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial court. Thisapplication under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Smt.Kamlathereafter at belated stage. Learned counsel also states that thepetitioner has no means. Learned Additional Sessions Judge hasnot considered the matter in true prospect and maintenance ofRs.250/- was allowed to Smt.Kamla from the date of presentationof the application instead of date of order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife states thatBabu Lal has sufficient means and it is also clear from the recordthat Smt.Kamla is living with her father and also maintained byhim but trial court has awarded only maintenance of Rs.250/-permonth. This aspect has not been considered by learned trial courtas well as revisional court.

Arguments

I have considered the rival submissions advanced bylearned counsel for the parties and gone through the orderspassed by learned both the courts below as well as relevantdocuments produced before me. Learned Magistrate after hearingboth the parties and due consideration of material on record,reached to the conclusion that Smt.Kamla is entitled formaintenance of Rs.250/- per month and it has been awardedfrom the date of order. The revisional court also considered thematter in detail and found that maintenance allowed by thelearned Magistrate was just, however, he has passed the orderthat husband-Babu Lal shall pay the monthly maintenanceallowance from the date of filing of the application i.e. 30.7.1997.Since two courts below have considered this matter at length, Ido not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orderspassed by both the courts below while exercising power underSection 482 Cr.P.c.

In the same way, since the learned Magistrate,considering the economic condition of the petitioner-Babu Lal hasawarded maintenance of Rs.250/- to Smt.Kamla, I do not find anyground to enhance the monthly maintenance as awarded by the NK

learned learned Magistrate.

Accordingly, the instant misc. petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.

(KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA), J.