HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 198 / 2016
Laxman s/o Late Goverdhan Luhar, aged 25 years, resident of
Village Dholabhata (Near Rayla) Tehsil Aasind District Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt Santosh w/o Laxman Luhar D/o Gopal Lal Luhar, aged 25
years, resident of Near Charbhuja Nohar, Subhash Nagar, Bilwara.
2. Komal D/o Laxman Luhar through natural guardian mother
Smt. Santosh W/o Laxman Luhar D/o Gopal Lal Luhar, aged 25
years, residence to Near Charbhuja Nohar Subhash Nagar,
Bhilwara.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Patodia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Gurjar for Mr. Ramesh Purohit
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
08/02/2018

1. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by

order dated 10.12.2015 passed by Judge Family Court, Bhilwara,

whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section

126(2) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Court

passed ex-parte order on 13.01.2015, on the same date, Court

dismissed the application in terms of the compromise.

3. It is contended that once Courts had decided the case in

terms of compromise, there was no reason why Court proceed to

pass the order of maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is

also contended that the petitioner was present in Court and he

 (2 of 3)
[ CRLR-198/2016]

was under the impression that the matter has been decided and

therefore, there was delay in filing the application under Section

126(2) of Cr.P.C. and the same ought to have been condoned by

the Court below.

4. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision

petition. His contention is that in the proceedings under Section

125 Cr.P.C, petitioner after appearing in the Court, remained

absent and the Court proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner on

26.05.2014, thereafter, evidence was adduced on behalf of the

respondent and on 13.01.2015, the Court passed order granting

maintenance to the respondent.

5. However, since the application for interim maintenance was

also pending, the same was disposed of by the Court after

petitioner mentioned in the order-sheet of the application for

interim maintenance that she does not want to proceed for interim

maintenance.

6. It is contended that when the Court was to decide the main

application, there was no reason for pressing the application for

interim maintenance, hence, the same was not pressed by the

respondent and was dismissed by the Court. It is further

contended that there was no reason for delay in filing application

under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. and the Court below has not

committed any perversity so as to invoke the revisional

jurisdiction.

7. I have considered the contentions.

8. Considering the contentions of counsel for the respondent,

 (3 of 3)
[ CRLR-198/2016]

and after perusal of the file of the Court below, it is apparent that

the respondent did not press her application for interim

maintenance and the same was dismissed on 13.01.2015.

However, as far as the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is

concerned, the same was argued by the respondent and the Court

passed the order ex-parte on the basis of evidence adduced by the

respondent. There was thus no justification for the Court to have

entertained the application under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. and the

Court below has not committed any perversity in rejecting the

application filed by the petitioner.

9. No ground is made out for entertaining the revision petition,

the same deserves to be dismissed.

10. The criminal revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

Arti/52