Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioner-husband is aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2010, passed by the Family Court, Udaipur, whereby the learned Court has directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.2,100/- per month to the respondent-wife, Smt. Anita, from 26.10.2010 onwards.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-husband, Dilip Kumar, and respondent-wife, Anita, were married on 27.04.1999 according to the Hindu customs and rites. According to Anita, Dilip Kumar and his family members kept her well for the first six months. However, afterwards they started demanding dowry. They also subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. Subsequently, they abandoned her leaving her at her parental place. Unable to maintain herself, Anita filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance from Dilip. Vide order dated 5.6.2008, the Family Court directed Dilip to pay a maintenance of Rs.800/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, Dilip filed a revision petition before this Court. Vide order dated 13.1.2010, this Court accepted the revision petition and set aside the order dated 5.6.2008 and remanded the case back to the learned Family Court. After the remand, the learned Family Court re-recorded the testimonies. Vide order dated 26.10.2010, as mentioned above, the learned Family Court allowed the application and directed the petitioner-husband to pay a maintenance of Rs.2,100/- per month from 26.10.2010 i.e. from the date of the order. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. N.R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, after the case was remanded back and the testimony of Anita was recorded, the learned Family Court did not give any opportunity to the petitioner-husband to cross-examine her and her witnesses. Thus, the principles of natural justice have been violated. Secondly, there is ample evidence to prove that the petitioner-husband is studying in LLB II year and is an unemployed youth. Hence, it is not feasible for him to provide maintenance to the respondent-wife. Thirdly, in contrast, there is ample evidence to prove that the respondent-wife is earning sufficient amount of income by selling flowers and garlands in front of Sanwariyaji Temple. Thus, she is capable of maintaining herself. Hence, she need not be maintained as she can look after herself financially. Fourthly, she is disentitled from claiming any maintenance as she has deserted the husband and is staying away from him without any rhyme or reason. Therefore, the benefit of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. should have been given to the petitioner-husband. Lastly, the learned Family Court has not given any cogent reason for increasing the maintenance amount from Rs.800/- per month to Rs.2,100/- per month. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, the learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously contended that the petitioner-husband is not justified in claiming that his rights under the principles of natural justice have been violated. For, according to the learned Family Court, the petitioner-husband had declined the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses inter alia on the ground that the witnesses were already cross-examined prior to the case being remanded back to the Family Court. Once the petitioner-husband him-self has declined the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, he cannot claim that the said opportunity has been denied to him. Secondly, the petitio-ner-husband has failed to prove that he is a student of LLB II year. Moreover, even if he were a student and is unemployed, he, being a young man, does have the capacity to earn and maintain his wife. Thirdly, according to the testimony of Babu Lal @ Babru (NAW-4), the petitioner does own agriculture land. Therefore, he has sufficient means to provide maintenance to the respondent-wife. Fourthly, the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document