[2025:RJ-JP:24227] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 633/2016 Rajesh Kumar Goswami son of shri Premasahankar resident of Near P.S. Sadar, Devpura, Bundi ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt Mamta Goswami wife of Rajesh Goswami 2. Bhawna d/o Rajesh Goswami, through natural guardian mother All are resident of Dailunda, Bhopat, Post Notada, Bhopat, Tehsil and Dist. Bundi ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Kumar for Mr. Amit Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K. Dixit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 01/07/2025 1. Instant Revision Petition is preferred by petitioner non- applicant aggrieved from order dated 20.04.2016 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 649/2012 passed by Learned Judge Family Court, Bundi whereby on an application under Section 125 CrPC filed by Respondent No. 1 Mamta Goswami, Learned Judge has directed petitioner to pay Rs. 3,000 per month to Respondent No. 1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 3. Respondent No. 1 Mamta has filed a petition on her behalf and minor daughter to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. After considering the material on record including evidence of both the parties, the trial court has rejected the prayer to grant [2025:RJ-JP:24227] (2 of 3) [CRLR-633/2016] maintenance to Petitioner No. 1 Mamta but awarded ₹1,000 per month as maintenance to minor daughter by order dated 28.10.2014. Aggrieved from order dated 28.10.2014, a SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 174/2015 before this court was filed. Rajesh Kumar has also filed a revision petition No. 594/2015 and both these revision petitions were decided and disposed of by a Coordinate Bench on 22.09.2015 whereby grant of maintenance to minor daughter was upheld but the order of refusal to grant maintenance to wife was set aside and matter was remitted back to the trial court. 4. After remand, the matter was considered by learned Judge, Family Court, Bundi and on 20.04.2016, the Family Court has awarded ₹3,000 per month as maintenance to wife from 17.07.2010. We have considered the grounds to challenge the order of maintenance passed by the Family Court, particularly reasons assigned by Learned Family Court. 5. The petitioner has claimed himself to be a person from a very poor strata, having no sufficient means or financial resources, to make payment to wife. Further, a ground is raised about mental pressure created by wife to threaten present petitioner. The wife has alleged cruelty and demand of dowry by present petitioner. The evidence on record was considered by the trial court which includes evidence of N.A.W.1 Rajesh. It is also on record that petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act is filed for restitution of conjugal rights but same was dismissed. The record also suggested that the marriage has been dissolved under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and the order has attained finality. Unless there is any order of permanent alimony or maintenance, [2025:RJ-JP:24227] (3 of 3) [CRLR-633/2016] the wife is entitled for maintenance. There is no record to presume poor financial condition of petitioner/non-applicant. 6. In view of the material available on record, Learned Family Court has considered the application under section 125 CrPC and on the basis of material on record has rightly awarded ₹3,000 per month as maintenance to Respondent No. 1 Mamta. 7. Having conceded the entire record in light of submission of learned counsel for the parties, there is no perversity or illegality in the order which requires interference of this court. 8. As a result, instant revision petition preferred aggrieved from order dated 20.04.2016 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 649/2012 is hereby dismissed with pending applications, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /57