Dismissed

Smt. Mohani Bai v. Heera Lal

Rajasthan HC16 Feb 2024CRLR/946/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court found the petitioner gainfully employed and the respondent disabled and unable to work, rendering the revision infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance claim by petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. dismissed; revision petition dismissed.

Smt. Mohani Bai Vs Heera Lal — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:45053]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 946/2004

¶4

Smt. Mohani Bai W/o Shri Heera Lal Dangi, aged 36 years, R/o Loiyra at present Siyalpura, P.S. Nai, District Udaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Heera Lal S/o Shri Rama Dangi, R/o Loyra, P.S. Nai, District Udaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order

¶11

16/02/2024

¶12

The petitioner in the present revision applied under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter against the respondent-husband with the averment that she has been married to the respondent for eighteen years. She left the marital home along with her minor daughter 9 to 10 years back due to cruelty by the respondent. In the averment, petitioner further mentions that her daughter's age is sixteen years. The petition also contains an averment that for the last one and a half year approximately respondent has stopped paying her.

¶13

The pleadings also allege that the respondent has entered into a second marriage with some lady residing in the village of Pancholi and also has kids out of the second marriage.

¶14

The petitioner is unable to maintain herself and the daughter. Her daughter studies in Class 12th. The respondent is earning Rs.200/- per day from executing labour work and also has an agricultural income of Rs.40,000/- to 50,000/- per annum from five Bhiga land at village Loyara. Therefore, respondent may be

[2023:RJ-JD:45053]

[CRLR-946/2004]

(2 of 3)

directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,000/- each to the petitioner and her daughter.

¶19

Respondent denies that he subjected petitioner to any harassment entered into a second marriage and has kids from the second marriage. The petitioner herself left the marital house and refused to live with the respondent. He never paid any maintenance to the petitioner. The petitioner herself is earning from labour work and the agricultural land owned by her father. He has paid a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/- along with gold and silver jewellery. His daughter is over 18 years old now. The respondent has made all the efforts to persuade the petitioner to live with him but she refused to live with him. Further, the respondent has no sufficient means to pay the maintenance amount as his both legs are fractured and he is unable to execute labour work. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance.

¶20

The court below dismissed the petitioner's claim on two grounds firstly the petitioner herself is earning Rs.750/- per month and can maintain herself, and secondly daughter's age before filing the claim petition was above eighteen years. The court also concluded that the petitioner has failed to establish the fact that the respondent is earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶21

The court also concluded that respondent has entered into a second marriage and has three children out of the second marriage. The court further held that in the absence of any documentary proof it cannot be said that the respondent owns agricultural land and has regular income from it.

¶22

As far as petitioner's daughter Kesar's claim is concerned, the subsequent proceedings placed on record show that she filed

[2023:RJ-JD:45053]

[CRLR-946/2004]

(3 of 3)

an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 03.11.2006 the Family Court, Udaipur directed the respondent to pay Rs.500/- per month and ultimately in proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. the parties entered into a compromise resulting into the culmination of an entire dispute between the parties. The compromise dated 27.02.2007 is also placed on record demonstrating verification of the compromise. Therefore, in view of the subsequent development, the revision petition preferred on behalf of petitioners daughter has rendered infructuous.

¶27

The evidence led by both the parties shows that petitioner herself is gainfully employed and residing separately for more than two decades before filing of the claim petition. AW-2 Deva, paternal uncle of petitioner himself in examination-in-chief deposed that petitioner is earning Rs.50/- per day. AW-1 Mohini admits that both the legs of respondent are fractured and he does not have regular source of income. She also admits that in both the legs of respondent steel rods were inserted. The petitioner is not able to show that respondent is having regular source of income. The evidence led by the respondent NAW-1 Heeralal verifies the fact that his both legs are fractured and he is unable to work. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

¶28

As a result, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶29

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶30

AK Chouhan/-

Smt. Mohani Bai v. Heera Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mohani Bai v. Heera Lal

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

Mukesh Kumar S/O Shri Sohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar S/O Late Kajodaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Aakash S/O Shri Rajesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Narayan Vs State

Vijay Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupendra Rankawat @ Bhanu Vs State of Rajasthan