(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore ('Family Court' for short )in Misc.No.18/2004.
(2.) Facts in brief are:
(3.) Learned counsel Sri.Ravishankar appearing for the appellant submitted that the Family Court failed to appreciate the material aspect of suit summons not being served on the appellant; the respondent created false documents to show the service of summons on the appellant; the trial Court failed to verify and discuss the evidence produced before it, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. It was contended that a common order was passed by the Family Court as regards Misc. No.18/2004 and Crl.Misc. No.174/2004, both filed by the appellant. Misc.18/2004 was filed to set-aside the exparte Judgment and decree passed in O.S.NO.31/1997 whereas Crl.Mis.174/2004 was filed seeking for cancellation of maintenance awarded in C.Misc.507/1990. The Family Court while allowing Crl.Mis.174/2004 filed by the appellant, appreciating the evidence that his son and the daughter being married vis-a-vis the appellant being retired in the year 2007 set-aside the order of maintenance passed in C.Mis.507/1990, as such, the same analogy ought to have been applied to the Misc.18/2004 also, whereby the Family Court had awarded maintenance amount of Rs.1,200/- per month for wife and children from the date of filing of the Suit. The exparte Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court in O.S. 31/1997 requires to be set-aside by setting-aside the Judgment and order of the Court below in Misc.18/2004. It was further contended that appellant had filed M.C.NO.1094/2002 against the respondent No.1 seeking for a decree of divorce and the same came to be allowed dissolving the marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent No.1 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Such being the case, the appellant is not required to pay any maintenance amount to respondent No.1 or the children. It was contended that the amount of Rs.65,000/- deposited before the executing Court in pursuance to the order dated 17.4.2017 was withdrawn by the respondent No.1-wife.