P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the aforesaid revisions have been heard analogously and disposed of by this judgment. ( 2 ) OPPOSITE party No. 1 for herself and on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3 who were the minor children, filed petition under Section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. claiming for maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that she and opposite parties 2 and 3 born out of the wedlock were ill-treated and deserted by the petitioner though he is capable of maintaining them having sufficient means. That application was registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 74/89 in the Court of SDJM, Jajpur. Later on it was transferred to the file of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack and registered as Crl. Proceeding No. 388 of 1991. Petitioner contested that case. In his show cause he admitted the relationship, but refused to pay maintenance on the ground that opposite party No. 1 is leading an adulterous life with one Mina Behera and voluntarily deserted him. In support of their respective cases both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Opposite Parties examined O. P. No. 1 as P. W. 1 and another witness namely Kapila Ch. Sahu as P. W. 2. The petitioner examined himself as O. P. W. No. 2 and his mother as O. P. W. 1. He also relied upon postal receipts vide Exts. 1 to 8 to prove that opposite party No. 1 was residing with said Mina Behera. On assessment of evidence in record, learned Judge, Family Court recorded the findings that the inter se relationship being an admitted factor, petitioner failed to prove the allegations of O. P. No. 1 leading an adulterous life and on the contrary at the time of adducing evidence, he offered to maintain the opposite parties if they rejoin him. In that connection he further recorded a finding that opposite party No. 1 apprehending danger to her life was not willing to join with her husband who, according to her, in the meantime had accepted a second wife. Learned Judge, Family Court also took into consideration the factum of desertion, non-providing of maintenance in the intervening period, the quantum of income of the petitioner as a Senior Stenographer working in the State Secretariat and allowed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 50 to the opposite party No. 1 and at the rate of Rs. Learned Judge, Family Court also took into consideration the factum of desertion, non-providing of maintenance in the intervening period, the quantum of income of the petitioner as a Senior Stenographer working in the State Secretariat and allowed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 50 to the opposite party No. 1 and at the rate of Rs. 200/- to each of the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. That order was passed by the Judge, Family Court on 9-9-96 granting the monthly maintenance in the aforesaid manner with effect from the date of application i. e. 26-4-1989. That order has been challenged in the abovenoted Criminal Revisionno. 444 of 1996. ( 3 ) DUE to non-payment of maintenance amount by the petitioner in accordance with the judgment dt/- 9-9-1996, about two months thereafter Opp. Party No. 1 filed application under Section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. for realisation of the arrear maintenance and that application was registered as Criminal Proceeding No. 724 of 1996. After receipt of the notice to show cause, as it reveals from the Order dt/- 12-5-1997 (impugned order), petitioner challenged maintainability of that application on the ground of limitation relating to the period beyond 12 months from the date of application. After hearing the parties, learned Judge, Family Court vide impugned order dt. 12-5-1997 rejected that show cause filed by the petitioner on the ground that two months after the judgment the Opp. Parties filed the petition for realisation of the arrear maintenance and therefore, that application was legally sustainable. That order has been challenged in Crl. Revision No. 214 of 1997. ( 4 ) IT has been noted in the revision application that Civil Proceeding No. 220 of 1994 was filed by both the parties under Section 13 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a mutual divorce. According to the petitioner on 26-10-1994 learned Judge, Family Court allowed the application by way of a decree of divorce in the event of payment of Rs. 30,000/- by the petitioner to the opp. party on that date itself and accordingly, petitioner paid Rs. 30,000/- to the Opp. Party No. 1 on 26-10-1994, but later on he found from that order that a direction had been given to the petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs. 35,000/ -. Hence he filed an application to recall that order. Opp. party on that date itself and accordingly, petitioner paid Rs. 30,000/- to the Opp. Party No. 1 on 26-10-1994, but later on he found from that order that a direction had been given to the petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs. 35,000/ -. Hence he filed an application to recall that order. Opp. Party No. 1 also filed an application withdrawing her consent for a mutual decree for divorce. That matter was heard and disposed of by the learned Judge, Family Court on 27-7-1996. Highlighting the aforesaid contentions of both the parties, learned Judge, Family Court not only recalled the order D/- 26-10-1994, but also rejected the application under S. 13 (b) and at the same time directed Opp. Party No. 1 to deposit the amount of Rs. 30,000/- in the Court which she had been directed to keep in a fixed deposit in terms of the order D. 26-10-1994. ( 5 ) THE aforesaid aspects are the admitted position in record. ( 6 ) ARGUMENT in Crl. Revision No. 444 of 1996 was heard in part on 19-3-1998 and thereafter the further argument in that case and the argument in Crl. Revision No. 214 of 1997 (which was heard analogously) was concluded on 27-3-1998. On 15-4-1998, a petition (registered as Misc. Case No. 193 of 1998) was filed to allow the petitioner to adduce additional evidence i. e. an affidavit said to have been sworn in by one Digambar Sahu the brother of Opp. Party No. 1 on 13-4-1998 before the Notary Public, a document of settlement of dispute between said Digambar Sahu and Opp. Party No. 1 D/- 11-1-1998 and another affidavit said to be of one Gajendra Sahu D. 13-4-1998. The prayer of the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 193 of 1998 for acceptance of the aforesaid additional evidence being devoid of merit is rejected inasmuch as petitioner has not been able to show as to under what circumstance, he failed to adduce evidence of those two persons at the time of hearing before the Judge, Family Court. Petitioner was not prevented from examining such person while tendering evidence from his side at the time of hearing of Criminal Proceeding No.388 of 1991. Petitioner was not prevented from examining such person while tendering evidence from his side at the time of hearing of Criminal Proceeding No.388 of 1991. When that case was instituted in the year 1989 and hearing was concluded and judgment delivered in September, 1996, the said case cannot be reopened only because of the aforesaid two affidavits were obtained in the month of April, 1998. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner while praying to set aside the maintenance order dt. 9-9-1996 argued that learned Judge, Family Court did not properly appreciate the evidence adduced by him and has rejected his whole stand simply because he stated in his evidence that he is prepared to accept the Opp. Party No. 1. In that context learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that due to lapse of time, notwithstanding the adulterous character of Opp. Party No. 1, he has reconciled with the situation and therefore for the betterment of his children he wanted to accept Opp. Party No. 1 and that is why he gave such evidence and it was not properly appreciated by the learned Judge, Family Court. ( 8 ) EVEN if that part of the argument of the petitioner will be accepted to not to draw adverse inference against his case for the reason of proposing to accept Opp. Party No. 1, then also keeping in view the facts alleged by the Opp. Party No. 1 that she has been ill-treated, deserted and refused to be maintained along with her children from 1989, is an admitted fact. In that context petitioner has not come out to the Court with a clean mind projecting a proper case justifying his action in refusing and neglecting to maintain the Opp. Party members. So far as the allegation of adulterous life said to have been led by Opp. Party No. 1 is concerned, as rightly observed by learned Judge. Family Court, petitioner has not been able to prove that allegation against the Opp. Party No. 1. As noted above, even if no adverse inference is drawn from the aforesaid answers of the petitioner, then also evidence of Opp. W. Nos. 1 and 2 is totally insufficient to draw a presumption in support of the allegations of Opp. Party No. 1 leading an adulterous life or having any sexual relationship with said Mina Behera. Party No. 1. As noted above, even if no adverse inference is drawn from the aforesaid answers of the petitioner, then also evidence of Opp. W. Nos. 1 and 2 is totally insufficient to draw a presumption in support of the allegations of Opp. Party No. 1 leading an adulterous life or having any sexual relationship with said Mina Behera. Thus, when there is no justifiable reason for the petitioner to refuse to maintain the Opp. Party members for such a long period and when there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of Opp. Party No. 1 about her safety in the hands of the petitioner. Learned Judge, Family Court did not commit any mistake in awarding maintenance in favour of Opp. Party members. The fact is not to be lost sight by this Court (being argued by both the parties) that in 1994 i. e. about five years after the desertion, petitioner participated for a mutual divorce. On the other hand, evidence in record, (copies of the deposition being filed by the parties) goes to show that Opp. Party No. 1 has sufficiently prove the case on behalf of Opp. Party members in support of their claim for monthly maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. Hence there is nothing to interfere with the order dt/- 9-9-1996. Criminal Revision No. 444 of 1996 is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. ( 9 ) SO far as Criminal Revision No. 214 of 1997 is concerned, though the ground of challenge of the proceeding under Section 125 (3) Cr. P. C. was properly dealt with by the Judge, Family Court on the ground of limitation, yet the facts remain that the Opp. Party No. 1 has already received a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as back as on 24-10-1996, when the proceeding under Section 12 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act is no more existing and learned Judge, Family Court has directed Opp. Party No. 1 to deposit that amount, it is to be verified by the learned Judge, Family Court if the Opp. Party No. 1 has complied with that order. If not the said Rs. 30,000/- may be adjusted towards the arrear maintenance by making proper calculation. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in that regard also argued that since that amount of Rs. Party No. 1 has complied with that order. If not the said Rs. 30,000/- may be adjusted towards the arrear maintenance by making proper calculation. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in that regard also argued that since that amount of Rs. 30,000/- was to carry interest, therefore, learned Judge, Family Court should be directed to calculate interest and to add that to Rs. 30,000/- and to adjust that amount (principal + interest) towards the arrear maintenance. That contention is not acceptable inasmuch as when the arrear amount was awarded with effect from 24-6-1989, petitioner is not asked to pay the said amount with interest. It also appears that as per this Court's direction, some amount might have been deposited by the petitioner. Learned Judge, Family Court may calculate and disburse the same in favour of Opp. Party members towards arrear maintenance up to the amount which they are entitled to get and excess amount if any may be properly dealt with. Thus, while not interferring with the impugned order dt/- 12-5-1997 (impugned order) Criminal Revision No. 214 of 1997 is disposed of with the aforesaid direction relating to payment and adjustment of the maintenance amount. In view of that if the petitioner shall pray for some reasonable time for payment of any further arrear amount due to be paid as per the application under Section 125 (3) Cr. P. C. , a reasonable period may be allowed to him and till that date, the order of executing of distress warrant and non-bailable warrants and the order of attachment of salary be kept in abeyance. ( 11 ) SINCE the matter relating to Civil dispute and passing and recalling of the order of divorce is not the subject of challenge in the aforesaid two criminal revisions and nothing was argued on the legality or otherwise of such order, that aspect has not been dealt with in this order. ( 12 ) BOTH the Criminal Revisions are disposed of in the manner indicated in this order. Ordered accordingly.