PRAHLAD DAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Yesterday on 23.05.2011, this matter was listed before this Court. However, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Still in the interest of justice, this Court directed that the matter be listed today i.e. 24.05.2011. It was also made clear that in case the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear on 24.05.2011, this Court shall have no other option, but to decide the case ex-parte. Even today, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner before this Court. Therefore, this Court has no other option, but to decide the case ex-parte.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-husband, Prahlad Das, and the respondent-wife, Smt. Laxmi Devi Vaishnav, were married in 1988 according to the Hindu rites and customs. On 21.11.1990, the couple was blessed with a son. According to the respondent-wife, while she stayed at her matrimonial home, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. Since she had a child, she was unable to live anywhere else. However, subsequently the petitioner-husband moved a divorce petition. The said divorce petition was granted ex-parte. Thereafter, the petitioner-husband had married another lady from whom he already has a daughter. Unable to maintain herself, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In order to buttress her case, the respondent-wife examined herself and two other persons as witnesses; the petitioner-husband also examined himself and two more persons as witnesses. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge directed the petitioner-husband to pay a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent-son. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court.

(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has noticed the fact that despite the fact that the petitioner-husband claimed that the respondent-wife was not his lawful married wife, the said contention has been rejected after meticulously examining the evidence. Moreover, the learned Judge has also noticed the fact that the respondent-wife is unable to maintain herself and her child. Although the petitioner had claimed that the respondent-wife was earning by stitching cloths, but the said claim could not be established by any cogent evidence.