Kamlesh vs Smt. Juli and Others

Hon''ble Mrs. Nisha Gupta, J.—This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 20.1.2012 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur whereby Rs. 1000/- per month has been awarded maintenance to the minor sons. Short facts of the case are that non-petitioner no. 1 mother of the minor children has filed an application u/s 125, Cr. P.C. on which the Judge, Family Court has awarded maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month to the non-petitioners no. 2 and 3.

The contention of the present petitioner is that wife herself has left the matrimonial home. The petitioner has no sufficient means to maintain his children. The non-petitioner no. 1 has sold the house belongs to the present petitioner and she is getting the interest on money. A petition u/s 9 of the Conjugal Rights has also been filed by the present petitioner prior to the filing of the application u/s 125, Cr. P.C. Hence the order of maintenance should be quashed.

The revision petition has been filed delayed and hence the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay has also been filed stating therein that he fell sick on 15.4.2012 and could not file the revision within time.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as the contents of the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

The impugned order is dated 20.1.2012 and admittedly, the certified copy of the order has been received by the present petitioner on 27.1.2012. According to his contention, he fell sick on 15.4.2012, but nothing has been done by the present petitioner from 27.1.2012 to 15.4.2012 to file any petition before the court. Hence taking the facts to be true as narrated in the application, no case is made out for condonation of delay. Hence the application is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.

Further more, the contention of the petitioner is that her wife is living separately on her own will or she has sold any property and the petition u/s 9 of the Conjugal Rights has been filed, has no bearing on the issue of awarding maintenance to the minor children. It is not in dispute that both the minor children are the out-come of the wedlock of the present petitioner and respondent no. 1 and it is the duty of the present petitioner to maintain them and after due consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances, maintenance has been awarded in favour of respondents no. 2 and 3. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and hence this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.