SUGANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bhilwara in revision whereby the learned Revisional Court accepted the Revision No. 35/2009 filed by the respondent No. 2 and reversed the order dated 21.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mand algarh, District Bhilwara in Case No. 121/2007, whereby the learned AC.J.M., Mandalgarh had awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner @ Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 16.4.2007.

(2.) Succinctly stated that facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the learned A.C.J.M., Mandalgarh. Notice was issued to the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 took a plea in his reply that he was married to the petitioner in the childhood but the petitioner never came to his house for performing her matrimonial obligations and raised the objection that as the petitioner had neglected to perform her matrimonial obligations, she was not entitled to claim any maintenance.

(3.) The learned Magistrate conducted an enquiry under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The statements of the petitioner's witnesses as well as the respondent No. 2's witnesses were recorded and thereafter, the learned Magistrate proceeded to accept the application filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate took note of the fact that Badri, the respondent No. 2's witness admitted in his cross-examination that Sugani used to come to her matrimonial home and used to go to the agricultural field etc. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate held that the respondent No. 2 had neglected lo maintain his wife and as such, he was ordered to pay maintenance to the petitioner @ Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 16.4.2007. The respondent No. 2 challenged the said order by way of a revision and the learned Revisional Court observed that the petitioner had never performed her matrimonial obligations after being married with the respondent No. 2 in her childhood and as such, she was not entitled to claim any maintenance from the respondent No. 2. The learned Revisional Court ultimately allowed the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 and set aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of the petitioner. Now the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant misc. petition challenging the order passed by the learned Revisional Court.