High Court of Rajasthan
Case Law Search
SMT MAYA AND ORS v STATE - CRLR Case No. 218 of 2006  RD-RJ 1000 (21 February 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
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
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/
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.