Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6537 (RAJ)

SATTAR GAURI v. MUMTAJ @ SHAHINA

CRLR/314/2006 · 2025-04-23

Sameer Jain

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:17220] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 314/2006 Sattar Gauri S/o Sh. Hanif Gauri, Aged 28 Years, Resident Of Hanif Unt Laddewala, Subhash Pura, Near Mataji Ka Mandir, STD Ke Saamne, Bikaner. ----Petitioner Versus Mumtaj @ Shahina Daughter Of Abdul Mugani Age 26 Years, Resident Of G-94, Amarnath Ki Bagichi, Mohan Chakki Wale Ke Paas, Ghat Gate, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.P. Verma with Ms. Khushboo Sharma for Ms. Archana Mantri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 23/04/2025 None has marked presence on behalf of the petitioner. Present revision petition is filed against the order dated 13.01.2006 passed by the Family Court No.1, Jaipur, whereby maintenance to the applicant to the tune of Rs.800/- per month from the date of application, i.e. 12.07.2004, was awarded. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the contents of the present petition and submitted that nikah/marriage inter-se the parties was solemnized on 21.06.2002. However, on account of some misunderstanding, respondent moved to Jaipur and stayed in Nari Chetna Samiti. It is further submitted that on July, 2004, an application for maintenance was moved by the respondent, as she was having no [2025:RJ-JP:17220] (2 of 2) [CRLR-314/2006] source of income and considering the said fact maintenance to the tune of Rs.800/- was awarded on monthly basis. When the matter is called, none has marked presence on behalf of the petitioner. Matter pertains to the year 2006. The impugned order is passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance by the learned Court after taking note of the fact that the petitioner is employed at cycle shop and is earning approximately Rs.3,000/- per month. Further, the petitioner is also rendering services qua book binding. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the present petition and the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J GAURAV/3