MANOJ CHHABRA Vs. MANISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Arvind Vashishth learned counsel for the revisionist husband. Perused the record. Opposite parties were not present despite service.

(2.) THIS is a petition under Section 19 Family Court Act read with 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') against the order dated 1.11.2003 passed by the Family Judge, Dehradun, whereby the Matrimonial Misc. Case No. 555/2002 was allowed and awarded the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 3000/ - per month to the wife under Section 125 of the Code.

(3.) BRIEF facts leading to the present revision are that an application dated 16.7.2002 under Section 125 of the Code was filed by the opposite parties (wife and daughter) before the Family Court, Dehradun. The Family Judge, Dehradun vide order dated 10.7.2003 rejected the interim application for maintenance on the ground that the affidavits have been exchanged but the arguments could not be concluded and there is no complete evidence on record and fixed the case for final disposal. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners -wife & daughter challenged the said order in WP. No. 861(M/S) of 2003, wherein it has been observed that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun has erred in rejecting the application of the opposite parties and the impugned order dated 10.7.2003 was quashed and the Principal Judge was directed to decide the application afresh.