BHAGWAN Vs. VAISHALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Amol Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N.B. Bargat, learned counsel for non-applicant nos. 1 and 2. ADMIT. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up forthwith for final disposal. By this revision application, a very limited relief sought by the applicant is remand of the matter to Family Court No. 3, Nagpur with a direction to grant opportunity to the applicant of cross-examination.

(2.) The controversy revolves around the proceedings initiated by the present non-applicants for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Judge of the Family Court, by the judgment and order dated 13.8.2013 allowed the petition partly with a direction to the present applicant to pay total maintenance of Rs. 5000/- i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month to petitioner no. 1/wife and Rs. 2000/- per month to petitioner no. 2/daughter from the date of the petition.

(3.) Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court erred in not appreciating the facts i.e. the applicant, in his evidence before the Court specifically deposed that divorce petition was filed by him on the ground of adultery and desertion before the appropriate forum and the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal, passed the decree of divorce in favour of the applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that non-applicant no. 1/wife chose not to appear before the Court, though duly served and accordingly, the judgment and order dated 06.09.2010 was passed. He further submitted that the learned Judge of Family Court, on the backdrop of these facts proceeded as if it was the Appellate Court and recorded its finding that though, there is a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband, there is no specific and clear finding upon which the decree of divorce was passed.