HEMSINGH DHRUV Vs. KUSUM DHRUV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 19/4/2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Misc. Criminal Case No.384/2015 whereby, the application preferred by the Applicant under Sec. 126(2) Cr.P.C seeking to set aside the ex parte order of maintenance passed under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C in favour of NonApplicant/wife on 10/12/2008 has been dismissed, this Revision has been preferred.

(2.) Shri Paranjpe, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that in Misc. Criminal Case No.500/2008, ex parte order of maintenance was passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur on 10/12/2008 whereby, the Applicant was directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000.00 to Non-Applicant/wife and the said order came to the notice of the Applicant when the Non-Applicant/wife has filed execution case in which, the Applicant appeared and raised objection that she is living separately with one Laxminarayan Upadhyay since 2005. Thereafter, the Non-Applicant/wife has not appeared in the said case and the recovery proceeding was dismissed for her non-appearance and later, she again filed an application for recovery of the amount of maintenance, therefore, the Applicant had filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. He further submits that the order impugned is illegal and the law is well settled that the period of limitation will begin from the date of knowledge of order of maintenance and not from the date of order as other interpretation will defeat the intention of legislature and would not be expedient in the interests of justice and the Applicant had categorically made an allegation of adultery against the Non-Applicant/wife who left the company of the Applicant on 25/1/2005 and customary divorce had also taken place as the parties belong to Gond caste, therefore, Shri Paranjpe prays that both the orders impugned be set aside and the Applicant may be allowed to contest the case on merits.

(3.) On the other hand, Ms. Pandey, learned Counsel for the NonApplicant/wife supports the orders impugned and submitted that in compliance of the order dtd. 10/12/2008, the Family Court had issued a letter to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer/Executive Engineer (E&M) Division Rudri on 22/8/2013 for deduction of maintenance amount from the salary of the Applicant and the said Officer had also deducted the same from the month of October, 2013 to the month of May, 2014, therefore, the contention of the Applicant that he came to the knowledge of notice of the impugned order in the month of July, 2015 is not acceptable. She further submits that the procedure of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C is summary in nature and does not decide the rights of the parties and the provision is a measure of social justice extended to protect women and children, the object to prevent vagrancy and destitution. She further submits that as per proviso to Sec. 126(2) Cr.P.C, the Applicant had not filed an application after having knowledge of the impugned order within 3 months and willfully neglected the maintenance to the Non-Applicant/wife and just to harass the NonApplicant/wife, this Revision has been filed. She further submits that no legal divorce took place between the parties and the Non-Applicant/wife is also not living in any adultery and the charge of adultery has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt not on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion, therefore, the Revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.