The liability of a Karta of a Hindu undivided family to maintain the members of the family is a personal liability and cannot be enforced through summary proceedings Under Section 125, CrPC.

M.A.A. Khan, J.-Since, both these Revision Petitions Under Section 397, CrPC arise out of the same order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated April 9, 1992 passed Under Section 397, CrPC whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge reversed the order passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar, in Criminal Case No. 65/1990 dismissing respondents application Under Section 125, CrPC for grant of maintenance to them, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The main order shall be placed on the file of S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 100/92 Radhey Shyam vs. Smt. Meera Devi & Anr., and a copy thereof shall be placed on the file of the other petition.

2. Respondent Smt. Meera Devi and her minor son Satyanarain had filed an application Under Section 125, CrPC in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar on 12.1990 alleging herein that Smt. Meera Devi was married to Shri Ram Avtar petitioner on 10.9.1978 according to the tenets of Hindu religion, that the wedlock produced a male issue, Satyanarain Respondent No. 2 for them but after the birth of Satyanarain the relations between the husband and wife deteriorated and became strained and in September, 1985 Smt. Meera Devi was turned out of her matrimonial house and since then she had been living, alongwith her minor son, with her father. It was further alleged that Ram Avtar respondent, despite having sufficient means to maintain his wife and minor son, neglected to maintain them. The respondents, therefore, prayed that Smt. Meera Devi be granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/-PM and Satyanarain, minor son, be granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/-PM from the date of the application.

.3. The application was opposed on behalf of the petitioner Ram Avtar on the ground that he, being a mentally retarded person, was dependent upon his elder brother Radhey Shyam, and was thus unable and also having no means to maintain himself , his wife and minor child. It was further averred that Smt. Meera Devi, alongwith her minor child had left the company of Ram Avtar on her own long back and had been living with her parents. In a sense, it was averred that she had deserted Ram Avtar petitioner for not good reasons and was,

.therefore, not entitled to any maintenance Under Section 125, CrPC.

4. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence of the parties produced before him held that Mr. Ram Avtar, petitioner was a mentally disabled person, that he was having no sufficient means even to maintain himself , that he was dependent for his maintenance upon his elder brother, Mr. Radhey Shyam, that Smt. Meera Devi had left the company of Ram Avtar on her own and did not want to live with him. The learned Trial Court, therefore, held that Ram Avtar respondent was neither having sufficient means to maintain the respondents nor did he neglect to maintain them. Holding thus the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition of the respondents.

5. In revision, however, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge though accepted the finding of the learned Trial Court that Ram Avtar petitioner being a mentally retarded person was unable even to maintain himself yet he fastened the liability of maintaining the respondents upon Ram Avtar’s elder brother, Mr. Radhey Shyam (Petitioner in S.B. Cr. Rev. Pet. No. 100/92), who, according to the learned Sessions Judge, was the Karta of the Hindu joint family of which Ram Avtar was a member, and as such was bound to maintain the female and the minor child of coparcener of the Hindu joint family. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, directed that Mr. Radhey Shyam petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 250/-PM to Smt. Meera Devi and Rs. 200/-PM to Mr. Satyanarain, minor child through her guardian Smt. Meera Devi towards their maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 12.1990. The order so made by the learned Sessions Judge in the petition pr