- (1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1994 is directed against the order dated 16.06.2012 as passed in Civil Misc. Case No.19/2012 (old No.8/2007) whereby the Family Court, Hanumangarh has allowed an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; and has directed the appellant to make payment of an amount of Rs.2,000.00 per month to his wife (the respondent No.1) and Rs.1,500.00 per month to each of his children (the respondents Nos.2 and 3) towards maintenance from the date of filing of the application i.e., 04.01.2007.
(2.) THIS appeal is reported to be time-barred by 70 days and an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed with the submissions that the appellant is a rustic villager and his counsel did not inform about the decision. Having regard to the circumstances, while ignoring the delay, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits; and after having heard the counsel and having perused the order impugned, we are satisfied that the order impugned does not suffer from any such infirmity as to call for interference in appeal. The relevant factual aspects are as follows: The appellant is husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondents Nos.2 and 3. The matrimony, as tied on 05.10.1992, appears to have fallen in disarray with the respondent-wife alleging ill-treatment by the appellant and his family on the alleged demands of dowry. The appellant appears to have filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage. There had been unsuccessful efforts at re-conciliation between the parties who continue to live separate with the allegations and counter-allegations against each other.
(3.) ON 04.01.2007, the respondent No.1 filed the application against the appellant seeking maintenance for herself and the minor children ­ the respondents Nos.2 and 3. The application was transferred to various Courts and ultimately came to be transferred to the Family Court, Hanumangarh in the month of February 2012. In opposition to the application for maintenance, the appellant averred that the respondent was living separate of her own accord and was unnecessarily harassing him by foisting various cases to the extent that a suit was filed in the name of the respondent No.2 under Sections 88,188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act seeking rights in the agricultural land that was dismissed. The appellant contended that the application for maintenance had been filed only in order to create some defence in the petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by him.;