Shanti Devi Vs. Mathura Lal

Shanti Devi vs Mathura Lal

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 07, 1995

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758328

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/758328
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Rajendra Saxena, J.
Decided On: Feb 07, 1995
Case Number: S.B. Crl. Revision Petition No. 414 of 1993
Subject: Family;Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Determination as to Juvenile - Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged oc...

Key legal issue: Family;Criminal
Acts & sections: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 24; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 125

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shanti Devi

Advocate Pawan Sharma, Adv.

Respondent

Mathura Lal

Advocate N.A. Naqvi, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 24; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 125
Reported In: I(1995)DMC486

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....tonk vide order dated 23.11.91 held that the petitioner had no independent source of income, that the non-petitioner's monthly pay was rs. 1766/- and that he also maintains his parents, younger brothers and sisters and taking in view the facts and circumstances of the case, granted maintenance in favour of the petitioner @ rs. 400/- per month. the fact regarding the alimony granted by the learned district judge was not brought to the notice of the learned magistrate. however, the non-petitioner in his memo of revision petition specifically mentioned that the learned district judge vide order dated 26.4.89 had also granted ad interim maintenance at the rate of rs. 200/- per month to the petitioner and that the said amount is being paid by him to the petitioner and that the learned magistrate had committed illegality in not adjusting the said amount. the revision petition was agitated before the learned additional sessions judge, who concurring with the findings of the learned magistrate about the income of the non-petitioner but keeping in view the factum of the alimony granted to the petitioner by the learned district judge, modified the order of the learned trial magistrate and directed that the amount of ad interim maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner by the learned district judge, tonk under section 24 of the hindu marriage act shall be adjusted in the maintenance amount granted under section 125 cr.p.c. it is true that proceedings under section 24 of the hindu marriage act and under section 125 cr.p.c. are independent and separate proceedings. but the quantum of maintenance under section 123 cr.p.c. has to be determined keeping in view the various sources of income of the party. a party should not get double maintenance amount from the husband passed in separate proceedings. the learned additional sessions judge keeping in view the admitted fact that the petitioner was granted ad-interim maintenance under section 24 of the hindu marriage.....

Full Judgment

Rajendra Saxena, J.

1. Heard, Perused the record of the lower Courts.

2. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 4.12.93 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk in Criminal Revision Petition No. 11/93, whereby, while rejecting the husband non-petitioner's revision petition against the order dated 3.11.91 of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, whereby under Section 125, Cr.P.C., he granted maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month w.e.f. 9.1.89, was affirmed, but the lower Court's order was modified to the extent that the amount of maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act shall be adjusted in the maintenance granted by him. It has been strenuonsly canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while exercising the power of revision was only empowered to look into the legality, correctness and propriety of the learned Magistrate's order and that he had no jurisdiction to modify the lower Court's order especially when the revision petition was dismissed.

3. The parties are not at dispute that the learned District Judge, Tonk in a proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act granted alimony in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein after due enquiry the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Tonk vide order dated 23.11.91 held that the petitioner had no independent source of income, that the non-petitioner's monthly pay was Rs. 1766/- and that he also maintains his parents, younger brothers and sisters and taking in view the facts and circumstances of the case, granted maintenance in favour of the petitioner @ Rs. 400/- per month. The fact regarding the alimony granted by the learned District Judge was not brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate. However, the non-petitioner in his memo of revision petition specifically mentioned that the learned District Judge vide order dated 26.4.89 had also granted ad interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the petitioner and that the said amount is being paid by him to the petitioner and that the learned Magistrate had committed illegality in not adjusting the said amount. The revision petition was agitated before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who concurring with the findings of the learned Magistrate about the income of the non-petitioner but keeping in view the factum of the alimony granted to the petitioner by the learned District Judge, modified the order of the learned Trial Magistrate and directed that the amount of ad interim maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner by the learned District Judge, Tonk under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act shall be adjusted in the maintenance amount granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is true that proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are independent and separate proceedings. But the quantum of maintenance under Section 123 Cr.P.C. has to be determined keeping in view the various sources of income of the party. A party should not get double maintenance amount from the husband passed in separate proceedings. The learned Additional Sessions Judge keeping in view the admitted fact that the petitioner was granted ad-interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, did not commit any illegality in ordering that the said amount shall be adjusted in the maintenance amount granted by the learned Magistrate. In my considered opinion the learned Additional Sessions Judge had the power to pass an appropriate order in its revisional jurisdiction.

4. Shri Pawan Sharma submits that the District Judge vide judgment dated 31.5.94 has granted the divorce dissolving the marriage of the parties and thus the order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has also come to an end. In such circumstances, petitioner shall be entitled to get Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance from the non-petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 1.6.94.

5. With these observations, this petition stands disposed off. The record of the lower Court could be sent back.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1995 Same Parties Shanti Devi vs Mathura Lal Same Subject Family;Criminal Same Judge Rajendra Saxena, J. Acts & Sections Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 24; Code of Criminal Proc...

Family;Criminal