Dismissed

Rakesh Kumar v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC20 Jul 2018CRLMP/1040/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a maintenance order. The Court rejected the petition due to a seven-year delay and a defect where the State of Rajasthan was wrongly impleaded as a necessary party unremedied by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file application before the trial court for modification of the impugned order citing subsequent events.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1040/2018

¶4

Rakesh Kumar Son Of Shri Mangi Lal , By Caste Saini, aged about 28 years, Resident Of Ward No. 25, Jhodradpurabas Bhadra, Tehsil Bhadra, Distt. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan

¶8

Mangi Lal Son Of Shri Nagarmal , By Caste Saini, Resident Of Ward No. 23, Bhadra, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, P.P.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶12

Order

¶13

20/07/2018

¶14

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 22.02.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the revisional court’), whereby the criminal revision petition No. 22/2010 filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed.

¶15

The said criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.07.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.26/2010 whereby, the trial court while allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMP-1040/2018]

¶18

petitioner to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent No.2.

¶19

The revisional court vide order dated 22.02.2011 has modified the order of the trial court and ordered that the petitioner shall pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.7,500 to the respondent No.2.

¶20

The office has pointed out a defect that the petitioner has wrongly made State of Rajasthan as party in this criminal misc. petition. The Deputy Registrar (Admn.) has granted two weeks time to remove the defect on 27.04.2018, however, the defect pointed out by the Registry has not been cured till date.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, therefore, he has not challenged the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court before this Court for seven years.

¶22

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned orders passed by the courts below, I do not find any reason to entertain this criminal misc. petition after a delay of more than seven years.

¶23

Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed for non removal of defect as well as on merits. However, the petitioner will be free to move application before the trial court for modification of the impugned order citing subsequent events took place.

¶24

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶25

Taruna

Rakesh Kumar v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Vs State and Anr.

Ramniwas Daga Vs State

Anand Singh Vs State and Anr.

Ram Lal Vs State and Anr.

Gopi @ Pappu Vs State of Rajasthan

Poornima Rajpurohit Vs State of Rajasthan