Court:Rajasthan High Court
Bench: JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Babulal vs Smt Manglibai on 9 April 2018
Earlier application dismissed – Subsequent application for maintenance is not maintainable.
This revision petition has been preferred on behalf of the husband-petitioner to assail the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by learned Family Judge No.3, Kota whereby maintenance allowance @ of Rs.1,200/- per month has been granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to respondent wife Manglibai.
After hearing for both the sides and taking note of the documents annexed with the petition, it transpires that the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the wife Manglibai was earlier rejected, vide order dated 17.08.1993 passed by learned Family Judge, Kota. It also transpires that vide order dated 14.03.1995 ex-parte decree of divorce was passed by learned Family Court, Jaipur in favour of husband on the (2 of 3) [CRLR-1898/2017] application filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. It appears that since then the wife Manglibai was residing as divorcee and maintaining herself by way of earning her livelihood while working as a domestic maid helper. It also comes out that after getting divorce decree, husband Babulal had remarried and is having two children in his new family.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Manglibai stayed with the petitioner as his wife only for 1½ months and thereafter she deserted him for no reason. Moreover, despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed on 27.01.1993 wife Manglibai did not join him and never stayed with him. Now the petitioner is having his liability towards his new family after re- marriage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of these facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by learned Family Judge No.3, Kota cannot be sustained. He further submits that the order dated 30.10.2017 tantamounts to review of the order dated 17.08.1993 by which the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was earlier rejected.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer. His contentions is that the petitioner has deserted his new wife also. Respondent Manglibai is not having any permanent source of income and is not able to maintain herself. As a divorcee wife she is entitled to claim the maintenance allowance from her past husband.
Having considered the rival arguments advanced by both the sides and taking the above stated fact into consideration, this Court finds that the order passed on 30.10.2017 cannot be sustained. Earlier on the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
(3 of 3) [CRLR-1898/2017] by wife Manglibai, order dated 07.08.1993 came to be passed whereby the said application was rejected. Order impugned dated 30.10.2017 certainly comes in the category of reviewing the order dated 17.08.1993 which is not permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The existing facts and circumstance of the case stated above do not justify the order passed on 30.10.2017.
In view of this, order impugned dated 30.10.2017 is quashed and set aside.
The revision petition stands allowed.