BABULAL ALIAS MANGILAL Vs. BHOORI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant criminal revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 397, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur (for short, 'the Family Court') in Criminal Misc. Case No. 744 of 1999, whereby the Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/ - to respondent No. 1 Smt. Bhoori Bai; Rs. 400/ - to respondent No. 2 Miss Jasoda; Rs. 350/ - to respondent No. 3 Miss Rasoda and Rs. 300/ - to Miss Varsha.

(2.) THE facts, relevant and necessary for disposal of this criminal revision, in a nut shell, are that respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging therein that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 27.4.1990 as per Hindu customs and rites and out of this wedlock, three daughters were born to her from the loin of the petitioner. It has been alleged by the respondent -wife that the petitioner -husband started harassing and ill -treating her by making a demand of a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - and on non -fulfilment of this demand and threatened her that in case his demand is not fulfilled, he would contract second marriage and ultimately on 16.7.1999, the petitioner contracted second marriage with one Smt. Hudi d/o Nathu Keer. It has further been alleged that when her youngest daughter Miss Varsha was in the womb, the petitioner, after giving beatings, turned her out of her matrimonial home and since then she is living with her parents. When her father sent a message to take her back, the petitioner refused to do so and told that he had contracted 'Nata' marriage and would not keep the respondent No. 1 with him. It has further been stated that she has no independent source of income and the economic condition of her father is also not good; whereas the petitioner has one truck, one saw machine and eight Bighas of irrigated land apart from milk -business and his monthly income is Rs. 20,000/ -. The petitioner filed reply to the application under Section 125 of the Code and denied the allegations of demand of Rs. 50,000/ - and contracting 'Nata' marriage; though in the reconciliation proceedings which took place on 17.12.1999 before the Family Court; the petitioner voluntarily admitted that he had contracted 'Nata' marriage with Smt. Hudi d/o Nathu Keer. He came with the case that the agricultural land belongs to his grandfather Heeraji and the truck belongs to his uncle Kishan Lal. He stated that he is driver of the said truck and gets Rs. 1,500/ - per month as salary. Both the parties led evidence. The Family Court, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the application and awarded the total maintenance of Rs. 1,500/ - per month to the respondents.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Family Court has fell in error in holding the petitioner as the owner of the truck on the basis of the power of attorney. He has submitted that the petitioner is only a truck driver and not the owner thereof.