VINOD PRALHAD BALAP Vs. CHHAYA VINOD BALAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Advocate for the applicant. None the respondent, though served.

(2.) THIS is a revision filed by the applicant who is husband of the respondent. The respondent-wife had filed a petition being Petition No. E-307/99 in the Family Court No. 2, Nagpur for grant of maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per month. In the said application she preferred an application for grant of interim maintenance and by an order dated 8-12-2000, she was granted an interim maintenance @ Rs. 800/- per month. The husband was not paying the interim maintenance, but was in arrears from November, 2001 till February, 2002. In the circumstance, the respondent-wife preferred an application on 29-1-2002 making a grievance for non payment of interim maintenance and seeking a striking out of the defence of the non-applicant.

(3.) IT appears that on the application, on 29-2-2002 the Court passed an order asking the other side to say. On 5-3-2002 the Court passed the further order that there was no say filed by the other side and hence the matter was directed to be put up for orders. An endorsement on the said application reveals that the applicant-husband received the copy of that application on 28-3-2002. However, on 28-3-2002 itself, the trial Court allowed the said application and struck of the defence of the respondent. In fact, the record indicates that on 28-3-2002 the applicant had deposited Rs. 4,000/- which were the arrears for five months, in the Court.