Honble SAXENA, J. – This revision petition has been filed against order dated 24/2/1995 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kota, whereby he allowed application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. filed by the non - petitioners, directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- per month each to his wife Smt. Anjali Singh and to his minor daughter Kumari Aashima as maintenance allowance from the date of filing their application, to deposit arrears of maintenance allowance within a period of two months and also to pay Rs. 200/- as costs.

(2). The petitioner was married to Smt. Anjali Singh on 26/8/1990 and on 21/9/91 Kumari Aashima (non-petitioner No. 2) was born out of their wedlock. On 9/11/1992, the non-petitioners filed an application under section 125, Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Kota with the averments that the petitioner has neglected and refused to maintain them since 4/10/1992 when he left them at Kota. It was further averred that they did not have sufficient means to maintain themselves, that the petitioner demanded dowry, he used to harass and beat Smt. Anjali Singh, treated her with cruelty and that he was also having illicit relationship with one Smt. Jyoti Kapur. It was pleaded that the petitioners monthly income was Rs. 12000-14,000/-. The non-petitioners therefore, prayed that each one of them be granted maintenance allowance @ Rs. 500/- per month. The petitioner in his reply denied allegations regarding cruelty and adultery and asserted that his wife Anjali Singh was living with her parents at her own accord, and deserted him, for which he has alrea- dy filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court, Jaipur, that she has a rental income of Rs. 1,000/- per month and she is also working as Jr. Rural Sociologist in Rajasthan Agricultural Drainage Research and drawing a salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month, that her father is an advocate practising at Kota and her mother is also working as District Sports Officer. He averred that he has now been posted at Madras, that his monthly salary is Rs. 3,800/-, that he has taken an ordinary room on rent and that his old parents are also dependent on him and prayed that the petition be dismissed.

(3). On 7/11/1994, the petitioner did not appear before the Family Court and as such, order for proceeding ex-parte against him was passed. He submitted an application dated 23/1/1995 for setting aside the said order but on the next date he again remained absent and therefore, his application was rejected. The learned Judge relying on the affidavit filed by Smt. Anjali Singh passed the impugned order. Hence this revision petition.

(4). I have heard Shri A.K. Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kamlakar Sharma learned counsel for the non- petitioners at length and carefully perused the record of the lower court in extenso.

(5). Shri Bajpai has vehemently contended that the learned Family Court has committed an illegality in not considering the reply and documents filed by the petitioner. According to him, Smt. Anjali Singh has a rental income of Rs. 1000/- per month from her shop which is evident from the copy of the plaint filed by her in the court of the District Judge, Kota, but the lower court did not consider the said docu- ment. He submitted that the lower court has also not taken into consideration the visiting card of Smt. Anjali Singh, from which it is fairly made out that she has been working as Rural Sociologist in Rajasthan Agriculture Drainage Research Project. Shri Bajpai has, therefore, canvassed that the family court has not applied its judicial mind and has committed an illegality in holding that the non-petitioners did not have sufficient means to maintain themselves.

(6). On the other hand, Shri Kamlakar Sharma has strenuously submitted that the petitioner deliberately did not appear in the court on many dates and thus malafidely wanted to protract the proceedings in order to harass the non-petitioners, that the petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document