H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) By this criminal petition u/s. 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Bikaner (for short 'the trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 261/2003 on an application filed by the non-petitioners u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, whereby the trial Court allowed the maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month to each non-petitioner, totally Rs. 2,500/- per month and directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance to the non-petitioners. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned and also carefully gone through the record of the trial Court.
(3.) On 13.10.2003, non-petitioners filed an application u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. The non-petitioner No. 1 is the wife, non-petitioners No. 2, 3 & 4 are sons and non-petitioner No. 5 is daughter of the petitioner. In the application, it was averred that on 21.7.1990, the non-petitioner No. 1 was married (Nikaha) according to customary rites to the petitioner. The non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 are the children borned from the wedlock. It has been stated that the petitioner, despite having sufficient means, neglected and refused to maintain the non-petitioners. So far as the income of the petitioner is concerned, it has been stated that he is earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month by trade in animals. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was claimed for maintenance. Notice on the application was served on the petitioner. On 15.11.2003, Mr. Salamuddin,. Advocate appeared for the petitioner and sought time to file reply to the application. The matter was adjourned on several occasions at the request of the counsel appearing for the petitioner. On 15.3.2004, another counsel Mr. Vijay Sharma filed power on behalf of the petitioner and sought adjournment though the trial Court had already granted various opportunities to file reply to the application yet another opportunity on payment of cost was granted to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. On 15.4.2004, neither petitioner nor his counsel appeared. Almost at the end of the day, the Court, finding no one appearing on behalf of the petitioner, proceeded ex-parte. Non-petitioner- Smt. Aamna herself appeared as AW-1 and produced Akbar Ali AW-2. Non-petitioner Aamna AW-1 stated in her statement that she was subjected to cruelty and harassed by her husband on account of demand of dowry and gold jewellery and she was turned out from the matrimonial home. Her husband demanded, apart from the jewellery, an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. She alongwith her four children had been turned out from the matrimonial home. Earlier also, the petitioner turned out the non-petitioner and by the intervention of the Panchayat and relatives, she was sent back with the petitioner. However, again petitioner subjected her to cruelty, assaulted her and turned out her from the matrimonial home. Again a Panchayat was held and the petitioner assured that he would not harass the non-petitioner, but again the petitioner continued to harass and assaulted her on account of demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/-and gold jewellery and since then she has been residing at her parent's house. She has clearly stated that she has no source of income to maintain herself and the minor children. She stated that the petitioner is trading in selling and purchasing of buffaloes. The statement of AW-1 Aamna is fully corroborated by the statement of AW-1 Akbar Ali, who stated in his statement that the petitioner used to assault the non-petitioner and turned out the non-petitioner and her children from her matrimonial home. He has also stated that the petitioner is trading in selling and purchasing buffaloes and his income is about Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month.;