- (1.) THESE two revisions arise out of the order dated 27.9.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Cr. Original Case No. 126/2002 "Usha Jain & Anr. Vs. Deepak Jain", whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application filed by Smt. Usha Jain and Sonal (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the respondents -applicants') wife and daughter respectively of Shri Deepak Jain (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the petitioner -husband) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and has directed "the petitioner -husband" to make payment of Rs. 1500/ - per month each to the respondents -applicants as maintenance allowance from the date of passing of the order. The petitioner -husband as well as respondents -applicants have assailed the order of the learned Judge, Family Court by filing these two cross revisions being Cr. Revision No. 901/2010 (Deepak Jain Vs. Usha Jain & Anr.) and Cr. Revision No. 435/2011 (Smt. Usha Jain & Anr. Vs. Deepak Jain). The petitioner -husband by way of the instant revision has challenged the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, whereby he has been directed to make the payment of maintenance allowance to his wife and daughter. The challenge has been made on three grounds, the first being that he was not provided with an adequate opportunity of leading evidence and contesting the matter because the case was proceeded with ex -parte without any justification. The second ground, which has been raised for assailing the order impugned, is that the respondent -applicant Smt. Usha deserted the petitioner -husband Deepak Jain since the year 1997 without any justification and therefore, she was disentitled to claim maintenance and the third ground, which has been advanced is that since the petitioner was unable to earn and was not having the means to make the payment of maintenance awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court, to the respondents -applicants, hence, the order impugned was absolutely illegal.
(2.) THE respondents -applicants have challenged the order dated 27.9.2010 on the ground that the same suffers from a patent illegality inasmuch as the amount of maintenance was ordered to be paid only from the date of passing of the order and not from the date of filing of the application. The second contention of the respondents -applicants is that the amount of Rs. 1500/ - awarded to the two ladies as maintenance, is on the lower side.
(3.) SHRI J.S. Choudhary learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pradeep Choudhary, assailing the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court contended that the impugned order is absolutely illegal. It has been submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court without any justification proceeded ex -parte upon the application filed by the respondent/applicants and thus, wrongly awarded maintenance to them. It has been submitted that after the evidence of the applicants had been completed, four witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner -husband and evidence was closed on 14.7.2010. On that day, the next date, which was fixed for hearing, was 30.9.2010 as noted by the counsel for the petitioner Deepak Jain but the learned Judge, Family Court erroneously mentioned the date in the proceedings as 30.7.2010 instead of the date '30.9.2010' as communicated to the counsel. It is thus contended that the ex -parte proceedings were undertaken without any justification and evidence was recorded in absentia of the petitioner -husband.;