Dismissed

Vishnu Ram v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Oct 2018CRLR/839/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition was dismissed. The High Court found no illegality in the lower courts' orders dismissing the petitioner's appeal and directing interim maintenance payments to the wife and unmarried daughters under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed as it was found to be bereft of any force.

Vishnu Ram Vs State and Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 839/2017

¶3

Vishnu Ram Son Of Shri Tulsi Ram, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Sutharo Ka Bass, Village Sathin, Police Station Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan

¶7

Smt Pappu Devi Wife Of Vishnu Ram, D/o Bhanwar Lal

¶8

Kumari Pooja D/o Vishnu Ram

¶9

Kumari Mamta D/o Vishnu Ram

¶10

No. 2 To 4 By Caste Suthar, Residents Of Nearby Aai Mata Mandir, New Jatawas, Jodhpur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.C. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhayay, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

04/10/2018

¶16

The defects pointed out by the office are over-ruled.

¶17

This criminal revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 17.4.2017 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metro (for short ‘the appellate court’) whereby, the Criminal Appeal No.149/2016 preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed while treating it as time barred.

¶18

The said appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.9.2016 passed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur Metro (for short ‘the trial court’)

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CRLR-839/2017]

¶21

whereby, the trial court has disposed of the application preferred on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to them to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.

¶22

The trial court has taken into consideration the fact that the respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are his unmarried daughters. It is also considered by the trial court that the petitioner has failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence to prove the fact that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are having sufficient resources to maintain themselves. The trial court has also observed that the petitioner has deliberately not disclosed his income, however, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case has directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.

¶24

Hence, this criminal revision petition being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed.

¶25

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶26

ms rathore

Vishnu Ram v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Ram v. State and Ors.

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

Abbas Vs State of Rajasthan

Shera Ram Vs State and Ors.

Arvind Kumar Vs State

Lichu Ram @ Laxman Vs State

Lakharam and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Heera Ram Vs State of Rajasthan