JUDGMENT :

1. In this criminal revision application challenge is to the judgment and order dated 11th April, 2012 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur, whereby the learned Judge allowed the petition filed by the non-applicant Nos.2 and 3 for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.PC”).

2. The facts relevant for deciding this revision application are as follows:

The applicant is the original respondent. The non-applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the petitioners in the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.PC for maintenance. Parties would be referred by their nomenclature in the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.PC. The petitioner No.1 was married with the respondent on 14th December, 1997. The petitioner No.2-Ku. Samiksha is the daughter of the petitioner No.1 and the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that after marriage, they resided happily for a short period. In the month of March, 1998 due to the body hormone changes, there was lactation to the petitioner No.1. It is called as hyperprolactemia in medical terms. It is stated that as the lactation to the petitioner No.1 started within 2 to 3 months after the marriage and at the time she had not conceived, the respondent expressed doubt about the character and fidelity of the petitioner No.1. The respondent made false and wild allegations against the petitioner No.1. In order to clear the doubt of the respondent, the petitioner No.1 agreed for the medical examination and got her medically examined at Government Medical College, Jabalpur. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that after medical examination, the doctor informed that the lactation may occur due to hormonal changes. The respondent despite this confirmation started mental torture to the petitioner No.1. The respondent according to the petitioner No.1 was reeling under misconception that before her marriage, she had aborted and, therefore, there was lactation to her. The respondent on more than one occasions told the petitioner No.1 that she had close relations with her cousin i.e. son of maternal uncle.

3. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that when all these mental torture and sufferings became unbearable, she informed this fact to her parents. Her parents went to them at Singrauli. They tried to give an understanding to the respondent, but the respondent was not ready to listen to them. The respondent compelled the petitioner No.1 and her parents to leave his house.

4. It is stated that when the petitioner No.1 left the house of the respondent, she had conceived. The petitioner No.1 had a genuine desire to cohabit with the respondent. The petitioner No.1 and her parents made attempts for reconciliation, but there was no positive response from the respondent. The respondent continued to make the baseless and wild allegations, doubting the character and chastity of the petitioner No.1. The daughter was born on 12th February, 1999. The news of the birth of the baby was conveyed to the respondent. The respondent paid a visit to the petitioner No.1. However, he did not attend the naming ceremony of the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 thereafter filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent. In the said petition, the respondent filed written statement and made wild allegations of illicit relations of the petitioner No.1 with her cousin. The petitioner No.1 and her parents thereafter stopped all attempts for reconciliation. The restitution of conjugal rights petition was not, therefore, prosecuted. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 on account of ill-treatment and torture meted out to her suffered a mental trauma and, therefore, she started residing at her parents’ house. The respondent did not pay the maintenance to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners, therefore, claimed the maintenance from the respondent.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent is serving as an Executive