1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This petition is directed against the order of the Family Court, Kota passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. rejecting the claim of the petitioner for maintenance against her husband inter alia on the ground that earlier application too has been rejected on 20.4.1993 and since then there is no alteration in the situation.

3. The undisputed facts are that parties to the petition married on 16.4.1984. On 7.2.1987, the "Gauna" ceremony was performed and the wife came to the matrimonial home. As a result of this alliance, a son was born on 22.11.1989, who is petitioner No. 2.

4. The wife has stated that she has gone to live with her husband in her matrimonial house but she was denied entry in the house by her husband and he refused to accept her. She claimed that she is unable to maintain herself. Her father has been out of job, where he was earlier working. She claimed that her husband is running a Pan shop from, which he earns Rs. 200/- per day and he also has a land ad-measuring 12-13 bigha out of which he earns Rs. 25,000/- per year. She also alleged that earlier application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was rejected on 20.4.1993. Thereafter, on 1.4.1996 she has gone voluntarily to the house of her husband but she was not allowed entry, and therefore, maintenance may be awarded for herself and her child at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.

5. Shorn of details, other admitted facts are that there is no love lost between the parties and thereupon spate of litigations between the parties ensued. Some of which were initiated by wife and some by the husband.

6. After filing of this application, the husband has obtained a decree of divorce against the wife somewhere in 1999 is the fact not in dispute and has been brought to the notice of the Court during the course of hearing by learned counsel for the husband. Prior thereto he has moved an application under Section 107 I.P.C. against the present petitioner, as well as an application for custody of his son. However, the result of those proceedings have not been placed on record though it has been stated that the criminal complaint under Section 498-A filed by wife has resulted in F.I.R. being filed by the Investigating Agency.

7. The principal defence to the maintenance petition has been that it was wife who was responsible for deserting the husband. She has indulged in frivolous criminal litigation including the complaint under Section 498-A I.P.C. against her husband and that she had not come to matrimonial home at all on 1.4.1996 as alleged. Reliance was placed on earlier order of the Court under Section 125 rejecting her petition inter alia on the ground that she is living separate from her husband without reasonable cause.

8. With this background, the petition was dismissed by the learned Family Court. However, in the record which has been made available one thing which is obvious is that whatever may be the dispute between the husband and wife, no reason has been shown for not granting claim of maintenance to the child. The application to provide maintenance for a minor child cannot depend upon the responsibility of strained relationship between husband and wife. No material has been placed on record whether the application for custody of child filed by husband has resulted in favour of the husband, but it is admitted that child is with mother. Nor anything has been stated whether wife herself able to maintain reasonably her minor child aged 7.

9. It is incomprehensible on any ground whatsoever that maintenance has been denied to the son on the application moved by the wife.

10. This is apart from the fact that the judgment under appeal appears to be too scratchy, overlooking the material on record which includes the statement of father of the applicant stating that respondent petitioner has remarried somewhere in 1995-1996. This is now the admitted case of respondent that he has moved