SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) he petitioner is the husband of the respondent Smt. Samudara. Neglected and left to dereliction, Smt. Samudara filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against him in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, which came to be registered as Cri.Misc. Case No. 135/2015. The petitioner is posted as a Cattle Guard in the Forest Department of the Govt. of Rajasthan. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent came to be allowed by the Trial Court by order dated 5.7.2019, whereby the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent as maintenance. The Trial Court held that the petitioner had treated his wife (respondent) with cruelty. The plea of the petitioner before the Trial Court was that the respondent was not his legally wedded wife and that she had put up a totally fraudulent case in the Trial Court regarding her being the legally wedded wife of the appellant. The Trial Court took note of the fact that the claimant Smt. Samudara examined herself as A.W.1 in the evidence. She pertinently stated in her examination in chief that she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. No question was put to Smt. Samudara in her cross-examination controverting this specific assertion made by her in the examination in chief. A case was filed by Smt. Samudara against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. wherein also, she was treated to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. In view of the pertinent fact that the petitioner never disputed the sworn testimony of the respondent that she was his legally wedded wife, by putting any question in this regard in the cross-examination, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner acquiesced to this situation. The application filed by Smt. Samudara came to be accepted by the learned ACJM, Jahajpur by order dated 5.7.2019 and she was awarded a sum of Rs.1500/- per month as monthly maintenance. The petitioner as well as Smt. Samudara assailed the order passed by the learned Magistrate by filing separate Revisions No. 47/2019 (Mahesh Raj Vs. Smt. Samudara) and 43/2019 (Smt. Samudara Vs. Mahesh Raj & Anr.). While Smt. Samudara sought enhancement in the quantum of maintenance, the petitioner questioned the very grant of maintenance to her. The Revisional Court rejected the revision filed by the petitioner whereas, the revision filed by Smt. Samudara was accepted and she was awarded enhanced maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month from the date of the application. The adverse order passed by the Revisional Court in the two revisions is assailed by the petitioner by way of these two misc. petitions.
(2.) Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Godara learned Counsel representing the petitioner and after going through the impugned orders, I am of the firm opinion that the impugned order dated 9.10.2019 passed by the Revisional Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity whatsoever warranting interference therein. The petitioner is a government servant drawing salary well in excess of Rs.40,000/- per month. He took a totally false stance that Smt. Samudara was not his legally wedded wife whereas, the facts indicate otherwise. Since no question was put up to Smt. Samudara in her cross-examination on this aspect, her sworn testimony remains uncontroverted. The pittance of Rs.1500/- per month awarded by the learned Magistrate to Smt. Samudara by way of monthly maintenance is like adding insult to injury. On the one hand, the lady (respondent) has been ditched by the petitioner and in addition thereto, her fervent plea for appropriate maintenance was not addressed properly. In this background, the Revisional Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the petitioner's revision and in enhancing the maintenance awarded to Smt. Samudara from Rs.1500/- per month to Rs.5000/- per month while accepting her revision. The only indulgence which the petitioner can be extended is to permit him to file an application before the Trial Court within next 30 days with a prayer to be permitted to deposit the arrears of accrued maintenance in easily instalments. In case, the petitioner moves such an application before the Trial Court, the same shall be considered sympathetically.
(3.) ith these observations and directions, the misc. petitions are dismissed as being devoid of merit.;