SHRIKANT SIDNAI RAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Record and Proceedings of the impugned order under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. was called for. It has been stated by Ms. Nandini Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant, that the notice of the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No.941 of 2018 was not legally served to the present revisionist.

(2.) Ms. Joshi has also raised an issue that the divorce decree was passed by the competent Court under mutual consent and permanent alimony had been given in the year 2000, suppressing all those facts, the proceeding was conducted before the Family Court, Vadodara.

(3.) Advocate Mr. Malkan,, resisting on behalf of the respondent no.2, submitted that all the efforts were made to serve the respondent - present revisionist, and when he could not be served, by preferring an application, Exh.7, the prayer was made for issuance of notice by way of registered post, which Mr. Malkan stated, came to be granted on 16/5/2019; thus, accordingly, the Advocate had served it by Registered Post A.D., but, as the same came to be refused, the order of ex parte proceeding was made on 13/9/2019.