R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) - Aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the Family Court, Udaipur, whereby the Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent-wife, and to pay another Rs. 1,000/- for the child Kumari Mahi, respondent No. 2, from the date of submission of the application i.e. from 15.6.2009, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Judge has ignored certain cardinal facts of the case, viz., that the petitioner and the respondent wife were living happily for five years. They separated their ways in 2008. The petitioner had filed the petition for divorce only then the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved. Therefore, the application under Section 125 was a counter-blast to the divorce petition. In similar way, the respondent wife had lodged criminal case for offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. Thus, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a motivated one. Secondly, that while the wife is an education person and according to her own testimony, she was working prior to the marriage, the husband happens to be a salesman at a liquor shop. Moreover, the petitioner is saddled with the responsibility to look after his family which includes not only his elderly parents, but also one sister who is divorced from her husband and has two children from her marriage. Thus, the petitioner is already overburdened with having to maintain at least five other persons excluding himself. Hence, it is not feasible for the petitioner to maintain the wife and the child. Lastly, that the learned Judge has directed that the maintenance shall be paid from the date of filling of the application, but without assigning any special reasons for doing so. According to the learned counsel, ordinarily maintenance should be paid from the date of the order unless special reasons are assigned by the Court.
(3.) Heard learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment.;