GARG, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 29. 3. 2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 115/97 by which he accepted the application filed by the respondent-wife under Sec. 125 Cr. P. C. and ordered that the petitioner-husband would pay Rs. 400/- p. m. (Rs. four hundred only) as maintenance allowance to the respondent-wife with effect from 26. 9. 1997, the date of presentation of that application.
(2.) THE necessary facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows :- THE respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. before the Family Court, Jodhpur on 26. 9. 1997 stating inter-alia that she was married with the petitioner-husband on 22. 5. 1983 as per Hindu rites and Gona Ceremony took place six years back, but after that, on so many trivial matters, the petitioner-husband used to quarrel with her and before four years back, she was shunted out from her in-laws' house by the petitioner-husband and other members of his family and she was tortured and harassed in so many ways and there was dowry demand also from her in-laws. ' It was further stated in the application that since for the last three years, the respondent-wife was passing through a crisis because of mental and physical cruelty on the part of petitioner-husband and other members of his family, therefore, she lodged a report for the offence under Section 498-A I. P. C. against them and on that report, challan was filed in the Court against the petitioner-husband and his father and mother and that case is still pending in the Court of Jaitaran District Pali. It was further stated in the application that not only thus, the petitioner-husband had contracted second marriage with one lady, namely, Parsi and out of that wedlock, a female child was also born. It was further stated in the application that respondent-wife has still desire to live with the petitioner-husband, but for no reason, the petitioner-husband had deserted her. It was further stated in the application that she had no means to maintain herself and on the contrary, the petitioner-husband earns about Rs. 5000-6000/- per month and he was having a Tractor also and thus, she has claimed Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance allowance. THE application of the respondent-wife was contested by the petitioner-husband by filling a reply on 18. 3. 1998 in which he denied all the allegations levelled against him by the respondent-wife and his main case was that no Ceremony of Gona had taken place between them and the respondent-wife lived in his house only for one week and, therefore, to say that she was beaten and tortured by him is absolutely wrong as in such a short period, all incidents as alleged by the respondent-wife could not have taken place. THE fact that a case for the offence under Section 498-A I. P. C. was filed by the respondent-wife has been admitted by the petitioner-husband. THE petitioner-husband has also denied the allegation of re-marriage with lady named as Parsi. On point on means, he has alleged that the respondent-wife was doing the business of tailoring and thus, she had sufficient means to maintain herself and on the contrary, he himself is a labourer and earns only Rs. 30-40 per day. THE further case of the petitioner-husband was that when the respondent-wife remained in his house for a week, she was not pregnant but she became pregnant in her parents' house and she mis-carriaged her pregnancy of four months also and she was having illicit relations with her Behnoi Devi Singh and from this point of view also, it was not possible for him to live with such type of lady. Hence, it was prayed that the application filed by the respondent-wife be dismissed. THEreafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their respective case. Three witnesses were produced by the respondent- wife and three witnesses were produced by the petitioner-husband. After analysing the evidence of both the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur through his impugned order dated 29. 3. 2001 allowed the application of the respondent-wife in the manner stated above holding inter-alia:- (1) That the allegation that respondent-wife was having illicit relations with her Behnoi Devi Singh was absolutely wrong as the said allegation has not been proved by the petitioner- husband. (2) That petitioner-husband has refused to live with the respondent-wife for no fault of her and he has also deserted and neglected her. (3) That the fact that petitioner-husband was only earning Rs. 40/- per day as labourer was not found correct. Aggrieved from the said order dated 29. 3. 2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur, this revision has been filed by the petitioner-husband. In this revision, the following submissions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband:- (1) That from the evidence on record, the fact that petitioner-husband neglected and deserted respondent-wife was not proved and thus, the findings of the learned Judge, Family Court are erroneous one and they should be set aside. (2) That allegation of adultery could have not been proved by the petitioner-respondent as in Family Court, lawyers are not being allowed to appear and furthermore, only questions were put to the petitioner-husband (NAW1) by the Court and the petitioner- husband was not allowed to state what he wanted to state and, therefore, in these circumstances, the impugned order should be set aside and the case be remanded back to the Family Court, Jodhpur with a direction that fresh evidence to prove that fact be taken and in this respect, it has been further argued that since in the Family Court, the lawyers are not being allowed to appear, therefore, injustice is being done to the party and from this point of view also, the impugned order should be set aside. Hence, it was prayed that this revision petition be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur be set aside and the application filed by the respondent- wife under Section 125 Cr. P. C. be dismissed. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife supported the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur. He has further submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and in awarding maintenance allowance to the respondent-wife, the learned Judge, Family Court has not committed and illegality and therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife and perused the record of the case. Before appreciating the contentions of the parties, in short, the object of Sections 125 to 128 Cr. P. C. has to be kept in mind.
(3.) CHAPTER-IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains Sections 125 to 128. These sections deal with maintenance to the wife, children and parents. These provisions are intended to fulfill a social purpose and provide a Preventive remedy by way of payment of maintenance to the neglected wife, children and parents. The object is to compel a man to perform his moral obligations which he owes to the society in respect of his neglected wife, children and parents against starvation and to tide over the immediate difficulties. The provision provides a speedy remedy against starvation by way of a summary procedure. It is not co-extensive with the civil liability of a husband. It gives effect to the fundamental and natural duty of a man to maintain his wife. The basic idea behind the provision is that no wife should be left helpless so that she may be tempted to commit a crime. This provision enables a Magistrate to take summary action for prevention of destitution. Section 125 Cr. P. C. is designed to prevent vagrancy and destitution. This section provides a summary and speedy remedy to get maintenance. ;