K.M. VEERENDRA Vs. MANJULA K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by husband challenging the order dated 10.02.2014 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 362/2013 by the Family Court, Mysore, whereunder the petition filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'the Cr.P.C) claiming maintenance of Rs. 15,000/ - by the respondent - wife came to be allowed in part and revision petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000/ - per month from the date of petition with costs of Rs. 1,000/ -

(2.) BY consent of learned advocates appearing for both parties, viz., Smt. Poornima M., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V. Rangaramu, learned counsel for respondent, I have heard this revision petition for final disposal.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that both parties are litigating in various forums and petition in question came to be filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife seeking maintenance from husband. It has been contended by the revision petitioner (husband) that without giving him an opportunity, order in question has been passed and when the matter was posted before Family Court for taking fresh steps, Family Court could not have placed him ex -parte and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court in this regard viz., that service of notice is sufficient, is bad in law particularly, when the previous Presiding Officer had ordered for fresh steps on 29.10.2013 and had adjourned the matter to 4.12.2013 and subsequent to the said order no steps had been taken by petitioner - wife to issue fresh notice, and as such placing the revision petitioner ex -parte by order dated 4.12.2013 by the Family Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside.