- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur dated July 27, 1991 by which he has granted maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent and Rs. 200/- per month to the daughter Priyanka with effect from May 28, 1990 under section 125, Cr. P. C.
(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, he has not considered that the appellant is always ready and willing to keep the respondent and excessive amounts of maintenance have been fixed. He also contended that maintenance @ Rs. 240/- and Rs. 200/- total Rs. 440/-was fixed under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act and it was also not taken into consideration. There is no substance in the appeal. After thorough and proper discussion of the evidence on record, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellant is not keeping the respondent with him. In the end of para No. 3 of the order it has been observed that despite the decree of restitution of conjugal rights the appellant is not keeping the respondent. In para No. 5 of the order it is noted that during the proceedings of the case efforts for reconciliation were made but the appellant categorically refused to keep the respondent with him. When the appellant refused to keep the respondent during the reconciliation before the Judge, Family Court, it cannot be believed that he is ready and willing to keep the respondent. The learned Judge has rightly held that the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent has any source of income in order to maintain herself and her daughter. It has been observed in para No. 4 of the order that the appellant admitted in his statement on oath that his salary is Rs. 2,100/- per month. As such the amount of maintenance fixed cannot be said to be excessive. There is no reference of the order passed under Section 24 or 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the impugned order. The appellant has not filed a certified copy of this order along with his appeal. Assuming that an order was passed fixing maintenance @ Rs. 440/-per month for both, this would not debar the Family Court to fix maintenance at the higher rate when according to the appellant order under section 24, Hindu Marriage Act was passed in the year 1986 and the present order has been passed in July, 1991. There has been great price escalation during this period.
(3.) THE appeal is summarily dismissed. .;