SBCr.RP NO.163/2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.163/2008. Jagdish Vs. Smt.Norti @ Rekha Date of order : 18/3/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Kapil Mathur for the petitioner. Shri Subhash Jain for the respondent. ****** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for petitioner. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1/6/2007 whereby the Family Court No.2, Jaipur while allowing application of the respondents has directed the petitioner to make payment of compensation of Rs.4000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 21/9/2005. The said order was passed on application duly filed by respondent No.1 wife and respondent No.2 daughter of the petitioner. Revision petition is barred by limitation having been filed with the delay of 150 days. Petitioner has seperately prayed for condonation of delay. It has been stated that the petitioner is working as Prahri in the Home Guard in District Dhar of the State of Madhya Pradesh. He at the relevant time was on duty and was posted in Madhya Pradesh therefore, he engaged a lawyer for appearing on his SBCr.RP NO.163/2008. 2 behalf before the Family Court, Jaipur. Lawyer made an application before the Family Court but did not inform him about the further proceedings. In the circumstances, petitioner could not appear before the Family Court and, therefore, the matter was proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for interim-maintenance was allowed by the impugned order dated 1/6/2007. In the facts of the case, it is considered appropriate and in the interest of justice to condone the delay. The delay is accordingly condoned and the matter is heard on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner as Home Guard is allowed duties only for a period of eight months in one year and he is receiving Rs.60/- per day as honorary salary and Rs.40/- per day for meal and Rs.40/- per month for washing allowance and thus he is receiving Rs.3000/- per month. This amount according to him, if multiplied by 8 months, it would hardly come to Rs.24000/- in a year. As against this, liability of enormous maintenance amount has been fastened upon him and that too without his being able to put forth his case. It was argued that if the petitioner was granted liberty to produce his evidence, he would have in all probabilities demanded the Family Court to fix a lesser amount than Rs.4000/- as maintenance out of which Rs.2500/- has been awarded as monthly maintenance to the wife and Rs.1500/- to the daughter. It was argued that petitioner being a low paid SBCr.RP NO.163/2008. 3 employee can ill afford to arrange for such a huge amount. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the revision petition and has argued that the petitioner was duly served with the notice of the proceedings and having appeared once on later dates, he has not appeared before the court. He cannot now be permitted to question the correctness of the order. It was argued that the amount fixed by the learned Family Court was reasonable. Having regard to the facts of the case and taking into consideration the argument that the petitioner could not produce before the family court the evidence in rebuttal and the quantum of compensation as has been fixed by the learned Family Court, the matter requires re-consideration by the Family Court. Besides, the petitioner has produced salary certificate obtained from the District Commandant, Home Guard Dhar (M.P.) which certificate in fact he wants to produce before the Family Court. In the circumstances of the case, while setting aside the order dated 1/6/2007, the matter is remitted back to the learned Family Court with the direction that petitioner shall have to pay interim- maintenance of Rs.1000/- to the respondent-wife and Rs.500/- to the daughter from the date of application dated 21/9/2005 till March, 2008 and upon his depositing the said amount, the learned Family Court shall proceed to decide the matter on merit afresh. Petitioner is directed to make payment of such interim-maintenance on month to month basis. SBCr.RP NO.163/2008. 4 Petitioner shall also pay in addition to above, a sum of Rs.2000/- as cost to the respondent-wife before the family court. If any amount has already been deposited by the petitioner, the same shall be liable to be adjusted against the aforesaid amount. The revision petition is allowed in the terms indicated above. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil/-