Judgment:
M.A.A. Khan, J.
1. The undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioner was married with Smt. Geeta respondent No. 1 on 2nd July, 1978 as per Hindu rites and customs. The relationship produced two male children for them, namely Manish and Mukesh. Manish is admittedly living with the petitioner and Mukesh with his mother non-petitioner No. 1 Smt. Geeta. Soon after the marriage, differences appear to have arisen between the parties. It was alleged that the petitioner turned the non-petitioner out of his house where upon Smt. Geeta respondent filed a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Jaipur. However, during the pendency of the said petition and on pursuasion of the Court, Smt. Geeta expressed her readiness to go with the petitioner. She was taken so by the petitioner only to be turned out later on after 20 days. Smt. Geeta again reached her parents to live with them. Finally, she moved the present petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. On evidence produced before him, the learned Judge, Family Court felt satisfied that the petitioner had neglected to maintain his wife and his son without reasonable cause. He accordingly directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- by way of maintenance allowance to Smt. Geeta and a sum of Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance allowance for the son Mukesh. It is that judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur on 11.9.1995 which is being challenged through this revision petition under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act read with Section 397, Cr.P.C.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade me to feel satisfaction that Smt. Geeta had left the company of the petitioner other own will Yet. Looking to the statement of P.W. 2 Harinarain Saini, it becomes abundantly clear that the petitioner has neglected to maintain his wife and son. It comes out clearly from the said evidence that on earlier occasion too Smt. Geeta was forced to approach the Court under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and on pursuasion by the Court she had gone to live with the petitioner. It is also evident from the statements of Geeta and Hari Narain Saini that the petitioner was in the habit of taking liquor and then picking up quarrel with the non-petitioner. The petitioner is admittedly employed as a conductor with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and has means to support his family. This position could not be denied by the petitioner himself and his brother-in-law D.W.2 Rakesh Sharma. I am, therefore, satisfied that the learned Judge, Family Court had drawn correct conclusion from the evidence brought before him. Accordingly, 1 agree with this finding that the petitioner having sufficient means had neglected to maintain his wife and minor son, non-petitioners.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the maintenance allowance fixed by the learned Judge, Family Court was oppressive and excessive and should be scaled down suitably. In my opinion, the submission is not acceptable in the present circumstances prevailing in the society. The objection is over-ruled. It was further submitted that the petitioner be allowed the facility to pay the amount of arrears in easy instalments. Looking to the fact that the petitioner was simply a conductor drawing a salary of about Rs. 2,000/-per month with which he has to support some dependents besides his own son, Manish, the petitioner is allowed to make payment of the arrears of maintenance allowance, which is due till date, in four quarterly instalments of equal amount commencing from 30.9.1996. This would be in addition to the payment of monthly allowance under the orders of the learned Judge, Family Court.
5. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed.