GARG, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Rakesh (hereinafter referred to as non- applicant-husband) against the order dated 4. 10. 2000 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 163/94, by which he accepted the application filed by the respondent No. 1 Smt. Nandu (hereinafter referred to as the applicant No. 1-wife) and respondent No. 2 Nand Kishore (hereinafter referred to as the applicant No. 2-son of applicant No. 1 and non-applicant) under Section 125 Cr. P. C. and ordered that non-applicant-husband would pay Rs. 500/- p. m. as maintenance to applicant No. 1-wife and Rs. 500/- p. m. as maintenance to applicant No. 2 with effect from 15. 12. 1994.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances:- The applicant No. 1 Smt. Nandu, wife of the non-applicant Rakesh and applicant No. 2 Nand Kishore, son of both applicant No. 1 Smt. Nandu and non-applicant Rakesh filed an application u/sec. 125 Cr. P. C. in the Family Court, Jodhpur on 15. 12. 1994 stat- ing inter-alia that applicant No. 1 Smt. Nandu was married with non- applicant Rakesh eight years back and after one year of the marriage, a son was born, whose name is Nand Kishore (applicant No. 2 ). IT was further stated in the application that thereafter, non-applicant-husband and other members of his family started harassing applicant No. 1 wife for not bringing sufficient dowry and demanded Rs. 25,000/- and when she did not arrange Rs. 25,000/-, she was beaten and they tried to kill her also and they also threatened that in case their demands were not fulfilled, they would arrange marriage of non-applicant husband Rakesh with another lady. IT was further stated in the appli- cation that thereafter, since it was not possible for them to live in the house of non- applicant husband, therefore, applicant No. 1 wife alongwith her child Nand Kishore, applicant No. 2 came to her parents house. IT was further stated in the applica- tion that even her father-in-law used to have evil eye on her. Not only this, the non- applicant husband had re-married with another lady before two years back and thus, he is neglecting the applicants and not maintaining them. IT was further stated in the appli- cation that monthly income of the non-applicant husband was near about Rs. 6000/- p. m. and thus, applicants demanded Rs. 1000/- p. m. as maintenance for both of them. On behalf of the non-applicant husband, a reply was filed in the Family Court, Jodhpur on 10. 3. 1995 by his father Pratap and in that reply, all the allegations, which were levelled by the applicant No. 1 wife, have been denied and it was further stated in the reply that she made a criminal case against them for the offence under Sections 498a and 406 IPC falsely. IT was further stated in the reply that on 27. 11. 1990, an agreement was executed between the non-applicant husband and applicant No. 1 wife and since then both were living separately and through that agreement, a divorce was given to applicant No. 1 wife by non- applicant husband. Non only this, the non-applicant husband is suffering from the mental disease and thus, he is not in a position to work. Hence, it was prayed that the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr. P. C. be rejected. During trial before the Family Court, Jodhpur, four witnesses were produced on behalf of the applicant No. 1 wife and two witnesses were produced on behalf of the non-applicant husband. After hearing both the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur vide order dated 4. 10. 2000 allowed the application filed under Section 125 Cr. P. C. by the applicant No. 1 wife Smt. Nandu and her son Nand Kishore, applicant No. 2 and ordered that non- applicant husband would pay Rs. 500/- p. m. as maintenance to applicant No. 1 wife Smt. Nandu and Rs. 500/- p. m. as maintenance to applicant No. 2 Nand Kishore, son of both applicant No. 1 and non-applicant from 15. 12. 1994 and thus, non-applicant husband was directed to pay Rs. 1000/- p. m. as maintenance to both the applicants holding inter-alia:- 1. That so-called agreement Ex. A/1, which is alleged to have been executed on 27. 11. 1990 cannot be looked into as original has not been produced and photocopy is not enough. 2. That apart from this, after coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the said agreement is of no value. 3. That since husband has re-married, the problem of applicant No. 1 wife has further increased. 4. That from the medical certificate Ex. A/2, which has not been got proved by the doctor, the fact that non-applicant husband was suffering from mental disease of schizophrenia cannot be held to be proved. 5. That the non-applicant husband is earning Rs. 100-150 daily by doing labour work. 6. That from the second marriage of non-applicant husband, two children were born and this fact also shows that applicant No. 1 wife was being neglected. In the above circumstances, the learned Judge, Family Court allowed the application filed by the applicants and granted maintenance in the manner as indicated above. Aggrieved from the said order dated 4. 10. 2000 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur, this revision petition was been filed by the non-applicant husband. In this revision petition, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- non-applicant husband:- 1. That the learned Judge, Family Court has committed an error of law in deciding the case on the technicalities of the Evidence Act and thus, he over-looked Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1984' ). 2. That the learned Judge, Family Court has failed to appreciate that as per the provisions of Section 125 (4) Cr. P. C. , the application filed by the applicants was not even maintainable, as both of them were living separately through mutual agreement Ex. A/1, which was executed on 27. 11. 1990 between both the parties. 3. That execution of agreement dated Ex. A/1 dated 27. 11. 1990 is well proved from the evidence of the applicant No. 1 wife, as PW4 Narsingh Lal has clearly admitted its execution. 4. That when the photostat copy of the certificate of ailment has been produced and marked, the case that non-applicant husband was suffering from mental disease should have been held to be proved. 5. That learned Judge, Family Court has given wrong finding that applicant No. 1 wife was not doing any job, though her father Dhuda Ram, PW3 has admitted that she is earning Rs. 20-25 daily by doing labour work. Hence, it is prayed that this revision petition be allowed and the order dated 4. 10. 2000 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur be set aside and the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 Cr. P. C. be rejected. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants-respondents has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur is based on correct appreciation of facts and law and does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality and thus, no interference is called for in this revision petition and the same be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and gone through the record of the case. The learned Judge, Family Court while allowing the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. filed by both the applicants, has held in para 10 of his order that execution of agreement Ex. A/1 cannot be held to be proved, as original has not been produced and similarly, the prescription and certificate of the doctor cannot be held to be proved in absence of production of doctor concerned, who issued it.
(3.) THE pertinent question is whether the above observations of the learned Judge, Family Court are correct one or not. Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 reads as under:- "section-14. A Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 to 1872 ). " Section 14 of the Act of 1984, which empowers the Family Court to receive as evidence any report, statement, document, information or matter for effectively deciding the dispute before it, frees it from the shackles of rigorous rules of evidence as a relevancy or admissibility of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by which ordinary civil courts are bound. ;