Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT MAYA AND ORS versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SMT MAYA AND ORS v STATE - CRLR Case No. 218 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 1000 (21 February 2007)

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 218/2006

SMT. MAYA & ANR. Vs. SURESH CHAND

Date of order: 21.02.2007.

HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J.

Mr. Kamlendra Sihag for

Mr. Biri Singh for the petitioner.

****

None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service.

The present criminal revision petition under

Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 23.01.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District

Alwar in Criminal Revision No. 36/2005, whereby the

Revisional Court while modifying the judgment dated 17.03.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Laxmangarh, has partly allowed the criminal revision filed by the respondent Suresh Chand and reduced the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 1,000/- so far as petitioner No.1 Smt. Maya is concerned and from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 500/- as regards

(2) petitioner No.2 Yogesh Kumar, son of the respondent

Suresh Chand.

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Laxmangarh, District Alwar vide its judgment dated 17.03.2005 allowed the application of the petitioners moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month in favour of the petitioner

No.1 Smt. Maya and Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner No.2 Yogesh Kumar w.e.f 28.10.2002.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and after having gone through the impugned order dated 23.01.2006 passed by the Revisional Court as well as the order dated 17.03.2005 passed by the trial Court, I am of view that the Revisional Court has committed an error while reducing the amount of maintenance as the trial Court i.e. the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Laxmangarh has considered each and every aspect including the income of the respondent-husband and has rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively vide its order dated 17.03.2005.

For these reasons, the impugned order dated 23.01.2006 passed by the Revisional Court deserves to

(3) be quashed and set-aside and the same is hereby quashed and set-aside and the order of the trial Court dated 17.03.2005 is upheld.

The revision petition stands allowed.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.