The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur entertained two connected S.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions. During absence of petitioner, the court rejected both after holding that lower appellate courts rightly affirmed findings regarding Section 498A cognizance and Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance order.
Criminal Misc. Petitions No. 383/2011 and 392/2011 are rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:22202]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 383/2011
Ram Chander S/o Laxman Ram, by case Baori, R/o 2 P.S.D. Police Station Rawla, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 392/2011
Ram Chander S/o Laxman Ram, by case Baori, R/o 2 P.S.D. Police Station Rawla, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. PankajKumar Gupta |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP |
| Mr. D. S. Thind for complainant |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
Date of Order : 18/07/2023
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 383/2011
Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads no instruction on behalf of the petitioner.
[2023:RJ-JD:22202]
[CRLMP-383/2011]
(2 of 3)
Heard learned counsel for the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
After perusing the material available on record, this court is of the opinion that the order dated 12.02.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh has rightly been affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh whereby the learned Magistrate has taken congizance against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order.
In view of the above, the present Criminal Misc. Petition is rejected.
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 392/2011
Heard learned counsel for the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
After perusing the material available on record, this court is of the opinion that the order dated 12.01.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh has rightly been affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anupgarh by which the learned Court has allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and ordered for the payment of interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- monthly to respondent. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order.
In view of the above, the present Criminal Misc. Petition is rejected.
Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court through E-mail or Fax forthwith.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
[2023:RJ-JD:22202]
[CRLMP-383/2011]
(3 of 3)
1-2 nidhi/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference is required in the impugned order affirming cognizance under Section 498A IPC.
Whether interference is required in the impugned order allowing Section 125 Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Chander S/o Laxman Ram, by case Baori
The State of Rajasthan
Smt. Hirki W/o Ram Chander, by case Baori
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
