High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 01 RAJ CK 0064

Dinesh Kumar vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 23 January 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.N. Bhandari, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Petition No. 1288 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 348 words

M.N. Bhandari, J.—By this criminal revision petition, challenge is made to the order dated 20.10.2012 whereby application moved by the respondents No. 2 and 3 u/s 125 CrPC has been allowed and given maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month each. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents No. 2 and 3 are living separately at their own. Petitioner was and is willing to keep them with him. Prior to filing application u/s 125 CrPC, an application for divorce was filed by respondent u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was on the ground of cruelty and other grounds. The application u/s 13 of the Act has already been dismissed by the competent court and, thereafter, present application u/s 125 CrPC has been filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3. When the ground of cruelty and other grounds for divorce were not accepted, application u/s 125 CrPC should have been dismissed by the court holding that the respondents No. 2 and 3 are living separately at their own.

2.

I have considered the submissions and perused the record. It has been admitted that on 5.2.2001 marriage took place between petitioner and respondent No. 2 and out of their wedlock, respondent No. 3-baby girl was born. On allegation of demand of dowry and dispute on that ground resulted in a case for offence u/s 498A and 406 IPC and after investigation, challan has been filed against petitioner. Taking note of the aforesaid fact and even the facts in reference to the order u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and considering statements of the witnesses, i find that respondents No. 2 and 3 having no means of earning and, otherwise, they are living separately for reasons. In view of above, application for maintenance has been allowed by the court below granting Rs. 1000/- per month each to the wife and daughter of the petitioner. In view of discussion made above, impugned order cannot be said to be illegal. I do not find any substance in the criminal revision petition. Hence, petition so as the stay application are dismissed.