The father is the natural guardian of a Hindu minor and is supposed to maintain the minor children. When he is the legal guardian and is not keeping them, it means that he has neglected them or refused to maintain them.

MOHD. YAMIN, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dated 13-5-97 by which he ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 350/- per month to each of his children Rinku and Kirti from the date of application submitted under Sec. 125, Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

( 3 ) MANSHA Bai was married to Shyamlal. Out of this wedlock two children were born. It was alleged in the petition that the wife and two minor children were kicked out of the house by the petitioner and he was not maintaining them for last 7 years. They were kicked out without any cause and have been neglected by the petitioner. He has refused to maintain them. The minor children Rinku and Kirti were living with their mother who was living with her mother as her father has already expired. They do not have any source of income and are unable to maintain themselves. The petitioner was a railway employee and was earning Rs. 2300/- per month and has nobody to look after. Therefore, it was submitted that Rs. 500/- be paid as maintenance allowance to each of three. The husband submitted his reply before the learned Judge of the Family Court admitting that Mansha Bai was his wife and two children were born out of the wedlock. He submitted that the wife had gone to her parents house on her own sweet will and despite his best efforts she was not ready and willing to live with the husband. She was maintaining hereself as well as the children. It was further stated that the wife did not want to live with the husband in the joint family and was pressurising that the petitioner should leave his parents and live in a separate house. The petitioner was not in a position to leave them and wanted to keep all of them joint. He never refused to maintain the wife and children. Many a time he tried to bring them and even panchayat of his community was held for the purpose. But the wife was not willing to live with the husband. Even in the last para of the reply it was submitted that the husband was ready to keep the wife and children with him. He also submitted that the wife was earning Rs. 70/- or 80/- per day as she was a washer woman while the petitioner was getting a salary of Rs. 1500/- being a khalasi in the railway, out of which he has to pay Rs. 350/- as house rent. The learned Judge, Family Court recorded the statements of witnesses of both the sides and then by the impugned order he refused to grant maintenance to the wife but ordered that a sum of Rs. 350/- be paid to each of the children totalling to Rs. 700/- per month from the date of the application. It was against this order that the petitioner has come in revision under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of Sec. 125, Cr. P. C. there should be a clear cut finding of the trial Court that the petitioner has neglected or refused to maintain the minor children and that they are unable to maintain themselves and unless such a finding is given by the trial Court the children will not be entitled to maintenance from the petitioner who is their father. He has submitted that by mere presumption the Court could not have directed the payment of maintenance allowance to the children. He has also submitted that the petitioner was always willing to keep the children but it is the wife who did not leave them. He also submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court ordered payment of maintenance from the date of application while this Court in Qamruddin v. Srimati Rashida, 1992 (1) WLC (Raj) 305 has held that the amount payable generally should be from the date of order and not from the date of application unless there are reasons to be recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court did not give any reason as to why he was allowing maintenance from the date of the app