HARFULSINH RAMJIBHAI AHIR Vs. NIRMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -husband who though served, did not appear to contest the proceedings, filed by respondent No. 1 wife under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has now come before this court is challenge the ex -parte award which was passed against him. It was averred by respondent No. 1 - wife that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 were married ; that the respondent No. 1 started with some other girl ; that respondent No. 1 was being maltreated and that the present petitioner -husband has got an agricultural income of Rs. 15,000/ - to Rs. 16,000/ - per annum. She, therefore, claimed maintenance at Rs. 500/ - p.m. It is specifically mentioned in the order of the learned trial Magistrate that the present petitioner -husband had refuse the notice of the proceedings and the learned Magistrate had no other alternative but to proceed ex -parte against the petitioner -husband. On recording the evidence the learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the wife would be entitled to claim maintenance at Rs. 250/ - p. m. The petitioner husband who had no intention of honouring his marital obligation has now come before the Court after having refused the service of the notice with a prayer the ex -parte award should be set aside.

(2.) MR . R.P. Solanki, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner urged that the ex -parte order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded. To do so, would be to fall a prey to the despicarde act of the petitioners. The petitioner who wants to delay the maintenance proceedings and who had no intention to honour his marital obligation would be unnecessarily put to an advantage by remanding the matter. He may be able to delay the legal proceedings. If an ex -parte order passed against the petitioner was passed in not haste without verifying as to whether the petitioner was served or not, then there would be some ground to set aside the ex parts order. In the instant case the petitioner was served with a notice. He refused to accept and did not appear before the Court, did not contest the proceedings, did not instruct any one to cross -examine respondent -wife and now on top of it, he comes before this Court and prays that the ex -parte award be set aside.

(3.) PROCESS of law, the petitioner wants to abuse but he cannot be given such liberty to do so. There being no substance in the revision application, it requires to be rejected and is consequently rejected confirming the order passed by the learned CJM. Revision application rejected.