SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
(2.) The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner Choru Lal seeking to assail the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bikaner in Cr. Misc. Case No.1864/2012 whereby, while partly accepting the application preferred by the respondents Smt. Pinku and Ms. Neeta (being the wife and daughter of the petitioner respectively), the court awarded them maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,500/- per month. Shri L.D. Gaur, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the respondents could not lead evidence to satisfy that the petitioner was having any such source of income by which he could be made to pay a huge sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
(3.) He urged that it was obligatory for the Family Court, to have taken evidence on this aspect and as the petitioner was provided no opportunity to lead his evidence, the order of the Family Court is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be struck down. Per contra, Shri Kaushal Gautam, learned counsel representing the respondents urged that the petitioner failed to appear before the Family Court to defend the proceedings on more than one occasion. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed way back in the year 2001. The petitioner intentionally tried to delay the proceedings by not appearing despite service of summons twice. Ex-parte proceeding was initiated against him and on the petitioner's request of being provided opportunity of leading evidence to him, the matter was reopened on both occasions, but he failed to avail any of these chances. During evidence of the applicants respondents, no cross-examination was made on behalf of the petitioner.;