The Family Court has a duty to ensure that the parties have a fair trial and that the court should not leave every filling in the hands of the parties, who are not conversant with the procedure of the Court.

1. - The Judge of the Family Court, Jaipur by his order dated 4-3-1992 granted maintenance to respondent No. 1, wife of the appellant and the respondents 2 and 3, daughters of the appellant on an application moved by them on 5th July, 1989. He has allowed Rs. 350/-per month to the wife and Rs. 150/- each to the two daughters from the date of application i.e 5-7-89. Before coming to the points raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, brief facts of the case maybe looked into. It is an admitted position that the appellant and the respondent No. 1 were married on 18-5-1975 and they had three children. Eldest is the son Rahul, who is presently living with the appellant. The other two daughters are living with the mother. According to the respondent No. 1, the relations between husband and wife were cordial up to 1986, but thereafter the appellant started treating her with a cruelty and he used to often beat her. In order to bring bad name even he filed a complaint, but she continued to bear all the insults and lived with him till October, 1988 when she was turned out of the house. Again her mother intervened and she was admitted to the house of the appellant but seven days after Diwali in the year 1988 she was beaten and turned out and thereafter she has been staying with her mother. In the application for maintenance it was alleged by the respondent No. 1 that the appellant had married another woman and the children faced problem and came to her on 18-5-1989. However it was mentioned that the respondent No. 1 had no means of income while the appellant was earning Rs. 3,000/- by working in the NBC and had his personal money lending business, by which he earned Rs. 2,000/- per month.

2. The appellant filed a reply, in which he alleged that in Jan., 1985, one man by name of Manohar Lal Kumawat came in their neighbourhood and gradually developed intimate relations with the respondent No. 1. She persuaded the appellant to give him a loan of Rs. 46.000/-. Then on 2-7-1985 the respondent No. 1 went away with this Manohar Lal Kumawat leaving behind the house and the children and after searching for her at various places, the appellant lodged a report at Police Station Sodala. The police then, recovered Manohar Lal Kumawat and the respondent No. 1 from a house in Prem Nagar, Jhotwara and produced them before the Court. The statement of Smt. Santosh, respondent No. 1 was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and then she was sent to Mahila Sadan. According to the appellant the respondent No. 1 never came to his house thereafter and there was no question of treating her with cruelty or turning her out of the house. It was only on 18-5-1989 that she took away the children from the appellant's house but then the son Rahul came back to his father on 15-10-1990. It was alleged that the respondent No. 1 worked as receptionist in a Hospital and was earning Rs. 1500/- per month. He pleaded that he was prepared to keep his daughters with him. The respondent No. 1 got an agreement executed on 20-8-1985, which was attested by the Notary Public and in this she and Manohar Lal Kumawat declared that they were living as husband and wife. Thus, the claim of the respondent No. 1 for maintenance was contested on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had married again and that she was leading a unchaste married life. The appellant denied his a second marriage.

3. By an application dated 25-7-1991 the appellant produced photostat copies of certain documents and prayed that he would produce certified copies of these documents after obtaining them from the Court of Additional Civil Judge No. 7 Jaipur, where they were presented in original. These documents are, a Will executed by Manohar Lal Kumawat in favour of respondent No. 1, muktyarnama and one agreement executed between Manohar Lal Kumawat and the respondent No. 1. Some letters written by Manohar Lal Kumawat to the respondent No. 1, the complaint filed by the appellant and the order of the Court