BIRENDRA KUMAR VERMA Vs. NEETU VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Revision, the Applicant has challenged the judgment dtd. 3/12/2020 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Baloda Bazaar in Misc. Criminal Case No.211/2019 whereby, maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.3,000.00 to Respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000.00 to Respondent No.2 has been granted under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that no opportunity was granted to the Applicant to file reply to the application for grant of interim maintenance amount. He further submits that on 14/1/2020, time was granted to file reply for the original application as well as for interim maintenance application and the case was fixed on 29/1/2020 on which date, the Applicant could not appear and the case was proceeded ex parte, therefore, the impugned order has been passed, which is bad in law. He further submits that on account of lock-down due to Corona Virus, the Applicant could not appear before the Court and on instructions, he submits that the Applicant is still willing to keep his wife along with him and is also ready to pay the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,000.00 i.e. Rs.2,000.00 to Non-Applicant No.1-wife and Rs.2,000.00 to Non-Applicant No.2-daughter and is also ready to clear the arrears within a period of two months and prays that the same may be calculated from the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. 3/12/2020. He further prays that the matter be remanded to the Family Court with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant, granting him time to file reply as also to cross-examine the Non-Applicants.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Jitendra Shukla, learned Counsel for the Non-Applicants opposes the Revision and submits that sufficient opportunity has been given to the Applicant but he has deliberately not appeared before the concerned Court, therefore, learned Family Court has rightly dealt with the issue involved therein for which, no interference is required.