HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2451/2014 Ishaq S/o Chenaa aged about 36, Resident of Dei Pole, Nainwa District Bundi. ----Petitioner/Non-Applicant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Public Prosecutor. 2. Rajiya W/o Shir Ishaq aged about 31 years, 3. Sahil S/o Shri Ishaq aged about 10 years. Both resident of Dei Pole, Mohalla, Nainwa, Minor through its Natural Guardian Smt. Rajiya presently residing at Shivpuri Colony, Ward No. 12, Nainwa, District Bundi ----Respondents/Applicants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhusudan Rajpurohit Mr. Yogesh Kalla Mr. Himanshu Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S.Dhakar-PP Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 29.01.2011 passed by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa, District Bundi by which the application submitted by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- to the respondents. 2. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner before the Revisional Court by way of filing a revision petition and the same was allowed vide order dated 02.06.2011 and the order passed by (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2451/2014] the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa was quashed and set aside. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents approached this Court way of filing a S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1815/2011 and the said petition was allowed vide order dated 16.05.2012 and the order passed by the Revisional Court was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the Revisional Court to decide the revision afresh. Thereafter, the revision petition submitted by the petitioner was re-heard and this time the revision petition was rejected vide order dated 05.04.2014. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as by the Revisional Court, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the instant misc. petition. 5. The only ground which has been taken by the petitioner is that when the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the respondents before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa, there existed a notification issued for constitution /establishment of the Family Court at Bundi in the year 2010, hence under these circumstances, it is only the Family Court which was having jurisdiction to hear and entertain such application and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was not having any jurisdiction to entertain such application. Hence, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made and perused the material available on record. (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2451/2014] 7. Perusal of the record indicates that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent No. 2 in the year 2002 and out from their wedlock, the respondent No. 3 was born and when their matrimonial life could not pull on well, under such circumstances, both i.e. the petitioner and the respondent No.2 started residing separately and when the respondents submitted an application against the petitioner, seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., no such objection was ever taken by the petitioner before the Trial Court that it has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the application submitted by the respondents. In fact, such objection was neither taken by the petitioner before the Revisional Court when the revision petition was submitted by the petitioner assailing the order dated 29.01.2011. Such objection has been taken by the petitioner for the first time before this Court. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the notification dated 03.05.2010 issued by the Department of Law and Legal Affairs of the State Government which shows that the orders were issued for creation of Family Court in different Districts including Bundi. 9 Another order dated 25.01.2012 indicates that additional charge of the Family Court, Bundi was given to the Presiding Officer who was posted in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The aforesaid order was passed in compliance of the order passed by the Department of Law and Legal Affairs on 13.01.2012. Meaning thereby, the Family Court, Bundi was made functional for the first time in the month of January, 2012 while in the instant case, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2451/2014] respondents before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate way back in the year 2008 and the same was decided on 29.01.2011 i.e. prior to posting of the Presiding Officer in the Family Court vide order dated 25.01.2012. Hence under these circumstances, the objection so taken by the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law. 10 Perusal of the order indicates that a petty amount of maintenance of Rs. 3000/- has been awarded to the respondents by the learned Magistrate by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The petitioner cannot be permitted to escape from his liability to maintain his wife and child. This Court finds no merits and substance in this petition and the same is hereby rejected. 11. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/30