VIMLA Vs. HEM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions arise out of the same impugned order, namely order dated 7.4.2005 passed by the Family Judge, Udaipur, whereby learned Judge has accepted the application filed under Section 127 (2) Cr.P.C. by the respondent-husband, while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance. Since, both these petitions arise out of the same impugned order, they are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) At the outset, it is pertinent to point out that vide order dated 7.5.2005, this Court had issued a notice to the respondent-husband. According to the registry, the notice was duly served on the respondent on 1.4.2010. However, despite the service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, this Court have no option but to proceed ex-parte against him.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Smt. Vimla was married to the respondent-husband, Hemraj. However, after the marriage certain disputes arose between them. They parted their ways. Since, Smt. Vimla was unable to look after herself, and her daughter, Meenaxi, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Court. Vide order dated 30.11.1996, the learned Court had directed the respondent-husband to pay a maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month to Smt. Vimla, and to pay maintenance of Rs. 200/- for Meenaxi. Thus, to pay a maintenance of Rs. 550/- in toto.