Vijay Kumar vs Indra And Ors

Notices were ordered to be issued by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2019 subject to the condition that the petitioner shall submit a demand draft of Rs.15,000/- in the name of respondent No.1 before the Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur within a period of fifteen days. Pursuant to that, the petitioner submitted a demand draft of Rs.15,000/- before the Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through his Advocate.

The notices were issued to both the respondents and in response thereof, Mr. Nishant Motsara puts in appearance on their behalf. Service is, therefore, complete.

This criminal revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 09.05.2017 passed by the Family Court, Hanumangarh (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Family Court'), whereby while disposing of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated at the instance of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to the respondent No.2) from the date of filing of the application i.e. 23.12.2016.

The office has pointed out a defect that the present revision petition has been filed with a delay of 799 days. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein it is averred that as summons of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were not served upon him, he failed to appear before the Family Court to defend the said proceedings. It is also mentioned in the application that in the month of February, 2019 when the police personnel came to the house of the petitioner for execution of the recovery warrant, then for the first time he came to know about the order dated 09.05.2017. It is also mentioned that petitioner obtained the certified copy of the order dated 09.05.2017 on 02.05.2019.

Having gone through the averments made in the application, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioner has satisfactorily explained the delay in filing this revision petition. The Family Court in the order impugned has specifically observed that summons of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were served upon the petitioner on 03.03.2017, however, the petitioner did not appear before it. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any proof of this effect that summons of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were not served upon him on 03.03.2017.

It is also noticed that even in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner has specifically averred that the certified copy of the impugned order was received by him on 02.05.2019, however, this revision petition challenging the validity of the impugned order had been filed by the petitioner on 15.10.2019 and the delay caused in filing the present revision petition from the date of obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order has not at all been explained.

In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to satisfactorily explained the delay in filing this present revision petition.

It is informed by the parties that after passing of the impugned order, the respondent No.1 got re-married on 11.10.2018.

Learned counsel for the respondents has frankly admitted that respondent No.1 is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the petitioner after 11.10.2018, however, it is submitted by him that respondent No.2 is entitled for maintenance till she attains majority or get married.

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is modified and it is clarified that respondent No.1 is not entitled to claim interim maintenance as directed by the Family Court after 11.10.2018, however, the respondent No.2 is entitled to receive the maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- per month till she attains majority or get married. It is made clear that respondent No.1 is entitled to receive maintenance amount due up to 11.10.2018.

With these modifications in the impugned order, this revision petition is disposed of. The Registry is directed to hand over the demand draft of Rs.15,000/- executed in favour of the respondent No.1 to her counsel.