Full Judgment
Amresh Ku. Singh, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties.
2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5th May, 1995 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur in Miscellaneous Case No. 65/ 95, Bhamvarlal v. Smt. Rekha. By the aforesaid order the learned Judge, Family Court rejected the application dated 6th January, 1995 filed by the petitioner Bhanwarlal under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below.
4. The petitioner Bhanwarlal is the husband of non-petitioner Smt. Rekha. The non-petitioner Smt. Rekha is mentally infirm. The application filed by the non-petitioner under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance allowance was allowed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur vide order dated 7th July, 1993. He granted maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month to the non-petitioner and an additional maintenance allowance of Rs. 300 /- per month to the daughter Rani. The petitioner challenged the order dated 7th July, 1993 by moving an application under Section 126(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the order dated 7th July, 1993 was passed ex-parte. The Family Court, Udaipur, dismissed the application filed under Section 126(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code vide order dated 2nd February, 1994.
5. On 6th January, 1995 the petitioner Bhanwarlal filed an application under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur and prayed therein that maintenance allowance granted vide order dated 7th July, 1993 to the non-petitioner Smt. Rekha and her daughter Rani be reduced because it is highly excessive looking to the income of the petitioner which was reduced on account of sale of floor mill by the petitioner. The Judge, Family Court, after, hearing both the parties rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court on 6th January, 1995 is against law and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code deserves to be allowed and the maintenance allowance granted to the non-petitioner and her daughter deserves to be reduced. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner has opposed this petition and supported the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur.
7. I have considered the arguments of both the parties and the reasons given by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur for rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judge, Family Court has observed that according to the certificate of salary issued by the employer, basic salary of the petitioner Bhanwarlal is Rs. 1,200/- per month. Besides he possesses one house in which petitioner's father resides and petitioner's father has 31 bighas agricultural land. Regarding the allegation that the floor mill has been sold by the petitioner to one Gaffur Khan the learned Judge, Family Court has observed that papers of sale are not genuine and no evidence has been produced to show that the electric connection and meter have been transferred to Gaffur Khan.
8. On a careful consideration of the reasons given W the Judge, Family Court and the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any such infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur as may justify interference in the order passed by him. This petition has no force, it deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected.