Skip to content


Banarsi Bai Vs. Ghisoolal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1955CriLJ167
AppellantBanarsi Bai
RespondentGhisoolal
Excerpt:
.....given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - in the circumstances, the applicant is clearly entitled to maintenance......appears in person.(2) there is no denying the fact that the applicant is the wife of the opposite party ghisoolal. the applicant is not living with her husband who, has married a second time. this is sufficient ground for refusing to live with her husband. in the circumstances, the applicant is clearly entitled to maintenance.the sum of rs. 12/- per month cannot be considered to be excessive. i doubt if it will prove sufficient, but perhaps the opposite party cannot afford to pay a larger sum. i, therefore, accept the reference, set aside the order passed by the learned honorary magistrate dismissing the application under section 488, criminal p. c, and direct ghisoolal to pay the maintenance at the rate of rs. 12/- per month from the date of the application and not from the date of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Nigam J.C.

(1) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, recommending that the learned Honorary Magistrate's order dismissing the application presented by Sm. Banarasi Bai Under Section 488, Criminal P. C, for maintenance be set aside and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12/-per month be awarded. Shri K. G. Shrivastava appears in support of the reference and the Public Prosecutor also supports it. I have heard the opposite party Shri Ghisoolal who appears in person.

(2) There is no denying the fact that the applicant is the wife of the opposite party Ghisoolal. The applicant is not living with her husband who, has married a second time. This is sufficient ground for refusing to live with her husband. In the circumstances, the applicant is clearly entitled to maintenance.

The sum of Rs. 12/- per month cannot be considered to be excessive. I doubt if it will prove sufficient, but perhaps the opposite party cannot afford to pay a larger sum. I, therefore, accept the reference, set aside the order passed by the learned Honorary Magistrate dismissing the application Under Section 488, Criminal P. C, and direct Ghisoolal to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12/- per month from the date of the application and not from the date of the second marriage.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //