BACCHU SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Sikari, District Dausa wherein the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent No.2, Vimla Devi, from the date of filing of the application i.e. from 23.08.2006 after deducting the amount which she may be receiving as maintenance under an order passed by any other court.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that Vimla Devi, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate claiming maintenance against the petitioner. She claimed that she was married with the petitioner about ten years ago according to Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was performed at village Bhojpura. After the marriage, when her brother came to her in-laws' house to take her, the petitioner and his family members misbehaved with her and her brother for not giving a motorcycle, a color T.V.&a fridge in dowry. After she came back to her parental house, the petitioner and his family members never came back to take her, but regularly demanded dowry. On their demand, her father gave Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner for dowry and to take her back to the matrimonial home. After a few days, again the petitioner and his family members started cruelty with her. Eventually, they threw her out of the matrimonial home. She is living with her parents. According to her, the petitioner is having plenty of income as he is having agriculture land, shops, tractor and also he is working in Jaipur-Mahwa Tollway Pvt. Ltd. as Toll Collector and he receives Rs.5,000/- gross salary, and Rs.4,715/- net salary. On the other hand, she is not having any source of income. Therefore, the petitioner is morally and legally bound to provide maintenance to her. Hence, she prayed for maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/- per month.

(3.) MOREOVER, a bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate was well aware of the fact that Smt. Vimla Devi was also receiving a maintenance amount in accordance with an order passed by the learned ADJ. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has clearly directed that the amount so received shall be adjusted against the amount of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thus, the learned Magistrate, for all practical terms, has granted a maintenance of Rs.300/- per month. Hence, it is impossible to hold that the learned Magistrate has violated judicial propriety. In fact, the learned Magistrate has passed impugned order while keeping judicial propriety in mind.