[2025:RJ-JP:33371] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1700/2013 Ranglal S/o Shankarlal, aged about 21 years, R/o Village Sadla, Teh. Manoharthana, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through PP 2. Mamtabai D/o Gyarsiram W/o Ranglal, aged about 19 years, R/o Village Akoliya, Police Station Manoharthana, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Saroj Singh, Adv. for Mr. Yogesh Singhal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. G.A. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 22/08/2025 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22.06.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aklera, District Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as 'Revisional Court'), by which, Revisional Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition No. 08/2010 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.02.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Aklera, District Jhalawar (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'), whereby, trial Court decided the Criminal Case No.553/2008 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and Rs.1,500/- maintenance was awarded in favour of respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court decided the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 16.02.2010 ex parte, therefore, the order is liable to be [2025:RJ-JP:33371] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1700/2013] quashed and Revisional Court also dismissed the Revision Petition filed against the order of trial Court. Learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed and both the orders passed by the Revisional Court and the trial Court be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be given liberty to contest the matter on merits. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. It is revealed from perusal of the record that the trial Court summoned the petitioner by sending notice through registered AD. The summon sent by the registered post did not return back, therefore, service to the petitioner was presumed to be sufficient and the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte. Therefore, the trial Court has awarded maintenance in favour of the respondent No.2, and against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing a Revision Petition. The Revisional Court also dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. There is concurrent finding of the Courts below. The maintenance awarded in favour of the respondent No.2 is Rs.1,500/- per month, which is very meagre amount. 5. This Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in concurrent finding of both the Courts below, therefore, this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 6. Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J Mohita /12