R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) MR . Ramesh Chand Meena, the petitioner, is aggrieved by the order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the Family Court, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application filed by the respondent -daughter, Kamlesh, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and has directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/ - from the date of filing of the application i.e. 2.6.2008. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Kamlesh, and her mother were maltreated by the petitioner. They were not only subjected to mental harassment but were also physically maltreated. Having no other option, the respondent and her mother left the parental/matrimonial home. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as she and her mother were unable to maintain themselves. The application was filed on behalf of the respondent by her mother as the respondent was minor at the relevant time. In the application it was claimed that the mother has to incur an expenditure of Rs. 7,500/ - for educating and up -bringing the daughter. Hence, a prayer was made that the petitioner be directed to pay Rs. 7,500/ - as maintenance for the respondent. It was further claimed that the petitioner has 75 bighas of land situated in Village Bhindi, Tehsil K. Patan and has two houses. His annual income is Rs. 8 Lacs. Despite the summons being issued to him, the petitioner failed to appear before the Court. The court proceeded ex -parte against him. By order dated 25.5.2012, the learned Court directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance as mentioned above. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(2.) MR . S.N. Meena, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the petitioner is willing to keep the daughter with him. Since the daughter is unwilling to residing with him, he cannot be forced to maintain her. Secondly, he does not own more than 3 bighas of land. Therefore, he is unable to pay a maintenance of Rs. 3,000/ - per month to the respondent -daughter.
(3.) THIRDLY , that the learned Judge has committed an illegality while directing the payment of the maintenance from the date of filing of the application i.e. 2.6.2008. Instead, the learned Judge ought to have directed that the maintenance be paid from the date of the order i.e. 25.5.2012.;