Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JUGAL KISHORE versus STATE & ANR

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JUGAL KISHORE v STATE & ANR - CRLR Case No. 226 of 2005 [2007] RD-RJ 721 (6 February 2007)

S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.226/2005

Jugal Kishore vs

State of Rajasthan & Anr.

DATE OF ORDER : 6.2.2007

HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI G.S. SARRAF

Shri PN Mohanani, for the petitioner.

Shri S.N. Tiwari, Public Prosecutor.

None present for the respondent no.2.

This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.1.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Prabatsar whereby the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kuchaman

City dated 8.5.2003 was set aside and the case was remanded to

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kuchaman City for disposal after recording the evidence of the parties again.

The facts in brief are that the respondent no.2 filed an application on 27.9.1996 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kuchaman City with the averments that she married the petitioner on 9.3.1989 and out of this wedlock, she gave birth to two children, namely, Sandeep and Pooja. It was further averred that she was subjected to continuous harassment by the petitioner and his family members and ultimately she was driven out of the house of the petitioner.

She claimed compensation for herself and for her two children, namely, Sandeep and Pooja. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of both the sides awarded maintenance to Sandeep and Pooja each to the tune of Rs.500/- per month and dismissed the application with respect to the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 filed a revision petition before the

Addl. Sessions Judge, Prabatsar, who set aside the order of the

Magistrate and remanded the case to the Magistrate for disposal after recording the evidence of the parties again. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite service.

The respondent no.2 claimed maintenance for herself and for her two children. No prayer was made in the application for maintenance of her third child. The inquiry by the court is restricted to the case pleaded by the parties. It is not permissible to the court to make out a case not pleaded by the parties. Since both the parties were given full opportunity to lead evidence there was no ground to order remand of the case for recording the evidence of the parties again. In this view of the matter, the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Prabatsar cannot be sustained.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 12.1.2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge,

Prabatsar is set aside and the order of the Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Kuchaman City dated 8.5.2003 is maintained.

(G.S. SARRAF), J. cpgoyal/-


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.