CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2004) 04 RAJ CK 0033

Manoj Mandal vs Mrs. Urmila Mandal

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 1 April 2004 · Citation: (2004) 2 CivCC 618 : (2004) 2 DMC 614 : (2004) 4 RCR(Criminal) 68 : (2004) 4 RLW 2514 : (2004) 3 WLC 235

HON’BLE JUDGES
Asok Parihar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Petition No. 795 of 2002

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

4 paragraphs · 343 words

Ashok Parihar, J.—Petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.7.2002 passed by the Family Court, Jaipur, by which a maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month has been allowed to the respondent wife. Apart from disputing the factum of marriage, even one more person in the name of Manoj Mandal, which is also the name of the petitioner, has been tried to be created with the allegation that the respondent wife had earlier married the said Manoj Mandal.

2.

After hearing learned Counsels for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record and also the record of the Court below.

3.

Apart from the statement made by the witnesses on behalf of both the sides, the Family Court has also taken note of the documents, as been placed on record. A bare perusal of the family card issued by the Civil Defence Authorities, which presumably has been issued as per the application and information furnished by the petitioner himself, shows that the family card issued by the competent authorities not only bears the photograph of the petitioner, but also mentions the name of respondent as wife of the petitioner. That apart, the identity card issued by the Election Commission, also bears the name of petitioner as husband of the respondent. In the voters list also there are names of the petitioner, his brother and respondent as wife of the petitioner, in the same sequence,

4.

After having considered the entire facts and circumstances, since proper consideration has been made by the Family Court in allowing maintenance, I find no ground for any interference of this Court in the present matter. Such finding of fact and proper discretion of the Family Court are not liable to be disturbed by this Court under its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits. The petitioner is directed to make the payment of entire arrears, as ordered by the Family Court, within 30 days from today and also pay a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to respondent along with arrears, as ordered above.