MAMTESH Vs. RANJANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner - husband Mamtesh @ Chandra Prakash against the order dated 9.5.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajsmaand upon application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance by the wife -non -petitioners Smt. Ranjana and Prit Kumar, his minor son of two and half years. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no means for the petitioner to provide any maintenance. More so, the said proceedings maintenance is outcome of application filed by him under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court Ajmer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent -wife herself not willing to live with the petitioner and petitioner is a physically disabled person, therefore, the order impugned for granting maintenance deserves to be quashed.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the opinion that not only under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act also the non -petitioners are entitled for maintenance. If the petitioner preferred an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2012 then obviously in that proceedings also, the non -petitioner is entitled for maintenance but instead of filing an application in that case, the instant application so filed for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the opinion of this Court, it is the duty of the husband and father to maintain his wife and child. As per facts considered by the Family Court, the petitioner is doing business, therefore I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order whereby the maintenance of Rs. 3,000/ - has been awarded to the wife and Rs. 1000/ - to the minor son who is two and half years old.