Bhagwani Devi vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner filed an application for grant of maintenance u/s 125, Cr.P.C., against the non-petitioner No. 2 Ram Kishan and, during the pendency of that application, an interim order was passed for interim maintenance by the trial Court vide order dt. 14.02.1994 directing the non-petitioner No. 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of the application. Being aggrieved with the same, a revision petition was preferred by non-petitioner No. 2. The revisional Court i.e. the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, vide its order dt. 25.03.1994, set-aside the order passed by the trial Court and directed the trial Court to decide the main case itself within a period of three months. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the revisional Court committed an illegality in setting-aside the order passed by the trial Court granting interim maintenance and in observing that when revision petitioner Ram Kishan has not admitted his marriage with Bhagwani Devi then no question does arise for grant of maintenance. It is contended that this observation will be fatal to the case of the petitioner therefore the impugned order passed by the revisional Court is liable to be set-aside.

No one is present for non-petitioner No. 2 despite service of notice.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner in the light of findings of both the Courts below. It is relevant to mention that as per the order of the revisional Court it is clear that applicant/petitioner has already led her evidence in the trial Court and this fact has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner also. The revision petition before the Additional District & Sessions Judge was preferred against an interlocutory order and, in my view, the observation made by the said Court was unwarranted as at that stage i.e. without recording evidence of opposite party, this observation could not have been recorded.

In view of the above fact that the applicant-petitioner has already led her evidence and evidence of non-petitioner No. 2 is required to be led in the present case, I think it fit and proper to direct the trial Court to allow the non-petitioner No. 2 to lead his evidence as early as possible.

Consequently, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the main application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. itself as early as possible keeping in mind that the present application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 1990. It is made clear that whatever observation made by the revisional Court in its order dt. 25.03.1994 will not come in the way of the trial Court while deciding the main application.

The Registry is directed to send back the record of both the Courts below immediately.

Consequent upon disposal of the main petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, also stands disposed of.