JUDGMENT 1. This miscellaneous appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1994 is directed against the order dated 16.06.2012 as passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 19/2012 (old No.8/2007) whereby the Family Court, Hanumangarh has allowed an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; and has directed the appellant to make payment of an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife (the respondent No.1) and Rs. 1,500/- per month to each of his children (the respondents Nos.2 and 3) towards maintenance from the date of filing of the application i.e., 04.01.2007. 2. This appeal is reported to be time-barred by 70 days and an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed with the submissions that the appellant is a rustic villager and his counsel did not inform about the decision. Having regard to the circumstances, while ignoring the delay, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits; and after having heard the counsel and having perused the order impugned, we are satisfied that the order impugned does not suffer from any such infirmity as to call for interference in appeal. 3. The relevant factual aspects are as follows: The appellant is husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondents Nos.2 and 3. The matrimony, as tied on 05.10.1992, appears to have fallen in disarray with the respondent-wife alleging ill-treatment by the appellant and his family on the alleged demands of dowry. The appellant appears to have filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage. There had been unsuccessful efforts at re-conciliation between the parties who continue to live separate with the allegations and counter-allegations against each other. 4. On 04.01.2007, the respondent No.1 filed the application against the appellant seeking maintenance for herself and the minor children - the respondents Nos.2 and 3. The application was transferred to various Courts and ultimately came to be transferred to the Family Court, Hanumangarh in the month of February 2012. In opposition to the application for maintenance, the appellant averred that the respondent was living separate of her own accord and was unnecessarily harassing him by foisting various cases to the extent that a suit was filed in the name of the respondent No.2 under Sections 88,188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act seeking rights in the agricultural land that was dismissed. The appellant contended that the application for maintenance had been filed only in order to create some defence in the petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by him. 5. It appears that in the trial of the application seeking maintenance, 4 witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents but the appellant (non-applicant) did not produce any oral or documentary evidence. The Family Court considered the evidence on record and found that the appellant was having about 15 bighas of irrigated and unirrigated land and was also earning out of animal farming. While finding the appellant possessed of sufficient means and the respondents have no source of income, the Family Court ultimately directed the appellant to make payment towards maintenance, as noticed at the outset. 6. The submissions in this appeal in challenge to the order aforesaid are that the respondent has left the matrimonial house of her own accord and, while living separate without any justifiable reason, she was not entitled to claim maintenance; and that the learned subordinate Court has proceeded in hot haste and without extending adequate opportunity, closed the evidence of the appellant. It is also submitted that the Family Court has erred in allowing maintenance from the date of filing of the application though the same, if at all, ought to have been allowed from the date of the order and not before. It is also submitted that the appellant is a poor person and if being forced to make payment of an excessive amount of Rs. 5,000/- from 04.01.2007, he would suffer irreparable injury where he has only 6 bighas of irrigated land and other portion of the land is unirrigated one. 7. So far the basic relevant factual aspects are concerned including the question as to whether the respondent is living separate of her own accord and the quantum of earning of the appellant, noteworthy it is that the appellant did not lead any evidence; and the evidence led by the applicants has remained uncontroverted. Thus, the submissions as sought to be made in this appeal on the factual aspects remain hollow and baseless for want of relevant evidence on the part of the appellant. 8. So far the question of denial of proper opportunity of defence or the learned Family Court proceeding with so-called haste are concerned, we can only reject such submissions as being contrary to the requirements of law. 8. So far the question of denial of proper opportunity of defence or the learned Family Court proceeding with so-called haste are concerned, we can only reject such submissions as being contrary to the requirements of law. As noticed, the application seeking maintenance was filed way back in the month of January 2007. Though nobody in particular could be faulted for the same having been transferred from one Court to another but then, the very purpose of the provisions like Section 125 Cr.P.C. would be frustrated if such applications for maintenance are allowed to be dragged for excessive length of time in the name of affording of multiple opportunities to the contesting parties. The learned Family Court has specifically observed in its order impugned that the appellant did not lead the evidence despite several opportunities and then, the evidence was closed on 15.06.2012. Merely because it had proceeded with the matter with expedition and decided the application within four months after being transferred to it, the Family Court cannot be said to have violated any requirements of law; rather the Family Court has aptly carried out its responsibility in deciding such matter with reasonable promptitude. 9. On the question of quantum, in the totality of circumstances of this case, the provision for an amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 1,500/- per month for each of the children could only be said to be rather moderate. 10. In view of the above, we are clearly of the view that no case for interference in the just and proper order passed by the Family Court is made out; and this appeal does not merit admission.Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed summarily.Appeal dismissed. *******