JUDGMENT :

H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J.

The present petitioners are also the petitioners in Criminal Misc.No.398/2013, on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumkur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Family Court) which was filed by them against the present respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Cr.P.C.), praying for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month to each of them from the respondent.

The Family Court by its impugned judgment dated 04-02-2016, partly allowed the petition, wherein it dismissed the petition of petitioner No.1- wife and partly allowed the petition of petitioner No.2 - son and the respondent - husband was directed to pay maintenance to the petitioner No.2 at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. Being not satisfied with the said judgment, the petitioners in the Family Court have preferred this revision petition, wherein the petitioner No.1 has sought for allowing her petition as prayed and petitioner No.2 has prayed for enhancement of maintenance ordered in his favour and for an order as prayed in his petition.

2. Xxx xxx xxx

3. In spite of service of notice in this revision petition, since the respondent had remained un-represented, this Court by its order dated 07-01-2021, appointed learned counsel Sri.Rakshit R., as Amicus Curiae for the respondent to defend his case.

4. Though the petitioners initially were being represented by their counsel, however, since the said learned counsel had remained absent on several dates of hearing, this Court by its reasoned order dated 05-02-2021, appointed learned counsel Smt. Archana K.M., as Amicus Curiae for the petitioners. As such, both the parties are being represented by learned Amicus Curiae.

5. The summary of the case of the petitioners in the Family Court was that, the first petitioner is the legally wedded wife and the second petitioner is their son born from out of the said wedlock. The marriage of the first petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 13-09-2007 as per the customs prevailing in their community. The demand for valuables made by the respondent at the time of marriage was met by the parents of the petitioner No.1. However, when the petitioner No.1 went to her matrimonial home, after the marriage, though she was taken care of well by her husband for an year, but thereafter, he started demanding her for additional valuables to be brought from her parental home. Apart from the same, he also started ill-treating the petitioner No.1 and developed the habit of consuming alcohol and gambling. After the birth of the second petitioner, at the instigation of his parents, the respondent intensified his demand for some more amount of not less than a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be brought by his wife from her parental house. When she had been to her parental house for delivering the child, she was not called back or brought by the respondent thereafter, as such, he totally neglected her and deserted her. Awaiting for her husband to take her back, she spent for about five years and after convincing that she was permanently been deserted by her husband and since she was unable to maintain herself, she instituted the present Crl.Misc. before the learned Family Court against the respondent.

6. In response to the summons served upon him, the respondent appeared through his counsel in the Family Court and submitted his statement of objections, wherein, he admitted the marital relationship with the first petitioner and also admitted that petitioner No.2 is born to him from out of his wedlock with the first petitioner. However, he specifically denied that he had subjected his wife to cruelty or ill-treated her or that he had made any demand for additional valuables or dowry. He also denied that he had intentionally deserted his wife and was not taking care of his family.

7. In order to prove their case, the first petitioner got herself examined as PW-1 and got ex