PANKAJ Vs. RENU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is preferred by the petitioner under section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 1983, (hereinafter referred as 'Cr. P.C') for inter-alia setting aside the Order dated 02.06.2014, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (hereinafter referred 'ASJ'), Karkardooma Court, Delhi wherein the learned ASJ upheld the order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred 'MM'), Mahila Courts, Karkardooma Courts in Maintenance Petition no. 239M/2012 and Execution No. 261/2012.

(2.) The brief facts as stated by the petitioner giving rise to the present case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 21/02/2007 and the divorce decree was obtained by the petitioner by an ex-parte proceedings on 1/10/2013. The respondent had filed a petition, with the name of petitioner as Pinki instead of Pankaj, under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C , 1973for grant of maintenance wherein the order dated 04/07/2012 was passed for providing of maintenance of Rs. 3,300.00 pm to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about order dated 04/07/2012 on the said maintenance petition only after receiving of the notice on Execution No. 261/12 and due to which he could not appear during pendency of the maintenance petition and ex-parte order was passed on 28.02.2012 against the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for setting aside of the ex-parte order dated 28.02.2012 and ex-parte judgement dated 04.07.2012 along with the objections in the execution Petition. Vide order dated 28.11.2013 in Execution No. 261/12, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. The petitioner field the revision against the said order but the same was rejected vide order dated 02.06.2014. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court has erred in passing the order dated 02.06.2014, as the same is based on conjectures and surmises; that it has been wrongly observed by the concerned court in the order dated 02.06.2014; that there is no mention of the petitioner obtaining divorce ex-parte in the said order; that the respondent deliberately stated the name of the petitioner as 'Pinki' instead of 'Pankaj' in the maintenance petition filed by her and did not even implead the correct name thereafter; that the summon was not received by him on the said maintenance petition; that the mutual divorce was obtained on 04.03.2008 where actual name of the petitioner was mentioned and the decree was obtained on 01.10.2013, therefore, no maintenance is maintainable after the decree.