IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced that maintenance obligations under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are critical, and failure to comply with court orders can lead to severe legal consequences.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J. :- Present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 19.12.2019 challenging three separate orders passed by the Learned Family Court, Hisar. Challenge has been laid to order dated 17.04.2017 passed by Learned Family Court, Hisar whereby the defence of the petitioner in a matter pertaining to grant of maintenance, under section 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure was struck off; Judgment dated 05.06.2017 passed by Learned Family Court, Hisar, finally deciding the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C., filed by the respondent seeking grant of maintenance; and order dated 26.11.2019 passed by Learned Family Court, Hisar in Execution Petition filed by the respondent seeking recovery of maintenance amount from the petitioner, whereby conditional warrant of arrest of the petitioner has been issued.

2. The parties are being referred to as petitioner and respondent as per their status in the present revision petition, in order to ward off any ambiguity. Facts germane to the adjudication of the present lis are that the respondent being legally wedded wife of the petitioner filed a petition dated 25.02.2015, under section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Family Court, Hisar. In the said petition it was averred that the marriage of petitioner with respondent was performed on 18.05.2008. The parents of the respondent spent a huge amount on her marriage but the petitioner and his family members were not happy with the dowry brought by the respondent. The matrimonial relations between the parties became sour owing to the demands of dowry by the petitioner and his family members. Eventually the respondent was deserted by the petitioner. She completed her Ph.D. taking financial help from her parents. The respondent did not own any movable and immovable property anywhere in India and she had no independent source of income and as such she was living at the mercy of her parents. It is averred that the petitioner being a man of means earns more than Rs.2,00,000/- per month from his property dealing business at Gurgaon. Besides that he is the only son of his parents who own moveable and immoveable properties including agricultural land to the extent of 25 acres from which they earn more than Rs.4 lacs per annum.

3. The petition filed by the respondent was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto, wherein it was averred that the respondent herself had never been a good wife and daughter-in-law. She pressurised the petitioner to get the properties of his father transferred to his name. Upon refusal to do so, she started getting aggressive and threatened to implicate the petitioner and his parents in false cases. It is the respondent who treated the petitioner and his parents with acts of violence. She is an able-bodied woman and being a Ph.D. she has been working as Research Associate with the HAU, Hisar and earning not less than Rs.30,000/- per month. The petitioner though is qualified but is not able to work due to alleged depression caused by the respondent. He has not inherited any property from his parents.

4. The Learned Family Court, Hisar, after completion of pleadings in the case vide order dated 04.09.2015 held that the parties shall in their evidence place on record affidavits only supported with documents, if any, in respect of their respective claims. On 07.11.2015 the respondent tendered her affidavit Ex.PW1/A in her evidence. Thereafter, the case was adjourned by the Learned Family Court, Hisar for evidence of petitioner. After availing several opportunities the petitioner in his evidence tendered his affidavit as RW-1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to R-6 and closed his evidence. Learned Family Court, Hisar, thereafter, posted the case for arguments. In view of the conduct of the proceedings, order passed by the Learned Family Court and statements made by the parties, they seem to have waived their right of cross-examination.

5. The learned Family Court thereafter, posted the case to differen