Choru Lal vs Pinku And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner Choru Lal seeking to assail the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family

Court, Bikaner in Cr. Misc. Case No.1864/2012 whereby, while partly accepting the application preferred by the respondents Smt. Pinku and Ms.

Neeta (being the wife and daughter of the petitioner respectively), the court awarded them maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,500/- per month.

Shri L.D. Gaur, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the respondents could not lead evidence to satisfy that

the petitioner was having any such source of income by which he could be made to pay a huge sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as maintenance under

Section 125 Cr.P.C.

He urged that it was obligatory for the Family Court, to have taken evidence on this aspect and as the petitioner was provided no opportunity to lead

his evidence, the order of the Family Court is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be struck down.

Per contra, Shri Kaushal Gautam, learned counsel representing the respondents urged that the petitioner failed to appear before the Family Court to

defend the proceedings on more than one occasion. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed way back in the year 2001. The petitioner

intentionally tried to delay the proceedings by not appearing despite service of summons twice. Ex-parte proceeding was initiated against him and on

the petitioner’s request of being provided opportunity of leading evidence to him, the matter was reopened on both occasions, but he failed to avail

any of these chances. During evidence of the applicants respondents, no cross-examination was made on behalf of the petitioner. The respondents

duly proved the fact that the petitioner was earning well and rather in excess of Rs.25,000/- per month by operating an auto and by doing random

construction jobs. He further pointed out that while entertaining this matter, this Court stayed the impugned order of maintenance on the assurance

given by the petitioner’s counsel that his client would pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondents. This order was passed on 02.07.2018

but despite this assertion, not a single penny has been paid by the petitioner to the respondents thereby flouting this Court’s order. To this

submission, Shri L.D. Gaur had no answer.

It is clear from the record that the petitioner was provided ample opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry. He failed to cross-examine the

applicants and did not lead any evidence on his own behalf. Despite that, the learned Family Court did not accept, in entirety, the assertion made by

the claimants that the petitioner was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- by professing different vocations. His income was assessed within a restricted

range of rupees 10-12 thousand only. After holding so, the application for maintenance filed on behalf of the major sons Dheeraj and Gopal was

rejected whereas, the wife and the unmarried daughter Miss Neeta were awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- and 1,500/- per month

respectively. Therefore, it is clear that the trial court made an objective assessment of the evidence available on record while quantifying the

maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,500/- in favour of both the respondents. The petitioner was granted an interim protection by this Court on 02.07.2018

because the mediation proceedings failed. He was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondents by way of maintenance but he did

not comply with the order passed by this Court as well and continues to take advantage thereof. The impugned order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the

learned Judge, Family Court, Bikaner in Cr. Misc. Case No.1864/2012 is absolutely just and legal.

In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this

Court.

Accordingly, the revision petition fails and is hereby rejected as being devoid of merit. The stay application is also dismissed.