NARAYANASWAMY Vs. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aggrieved petitioner/husband has filed this petition seeking to set -aside the order passed by Fast Track Court -VII, Doddaballapura, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 44/2010 and also consequently to set aside the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Doddaballapura, in C. Misc. No. 46/2004, in granting maintenance of Rs. 1,000/ - each to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner and his counsel are absent before the court.

(3.) THE records disclose that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, as petitioners before the trial Court in C.Misc.No.46/2004, have filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC seeking maintenance from the respondent therein (petitioner herein) on the allegations that Petitioner No. 1 is the wife and Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the children from the wedlock of the Petitioner No. 1 and the Respondent. It is contended before the trial Court that the respondent has taken the second wife and neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners. At the time of filing of the petition, Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 were minors aged 15 and 12 years, respectively. It is alleged that the respondent was a weaver by profession and there was some compromise entered into between the parties and during the compromise, an amount of Rs.20,000/ - was given to Petitioner No. 1 and also a Weaving Handloom Machine. It is specifically contended by the petitioners that the respondent has not made any arrangements for their maintenance and he has neglected and refused to maintain them. The trial Court after filing of the petition, issued notice to the respondent. In response to the notice, the respondent appeared and contested the proceedings. He also categorically admitted that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife and Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are children of him. The specific contention taken -up by the respondent is that he is only a coolie worker and he is earning a sum of Rs.350/ - to Rs.400/ - per week and therefore, he is unable to give any maintenance to the petitioners. The second contention taken -up by the respondent therein is that the petitioners have received a sum of Rs.20,000/ - as final settlement of maintenance and they cannot claim any maintenance again and he has denied the other allegations with regard to neglect, refusal, etc.