NARENDRASINGH SENGAR Vs. MALTIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the ex parte judgement and decree dated 16-1-89, passed in Civil Suit No. 12A/1984 by Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior.

(2.) Material facts giving rise to this appeal are thus : appellant is the husband of respondent No. 1, and the father of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Because of non-cordial relationship between the appellant and respondent No. l, the appellant started living separately, hence, the respondents instituted a suit claiming monthly maintenance to them and the amount of expenses for the marriage of the daughter; Ku. Rajni. The defendant filed written statement and contested the suit. The trial Court on the pleadings of parties, where they were at real and substantial difference, framed as many as six issues. During trial on 18-2-87, the defendant could not appear at the time of call at 12.30 p.m., hence, the Court ordered to proceed ex parte. After about an hour, the defendant appeared and filed an application to set aside the ex parte order passed against him, but the Court dismissed the application in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993, as the entire hearing was completed and the case was adjourned for pronouncing the judgement. On it, the defendant on 11-8-1987, prior to the date of pronouncing the judgement, moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. for bringing subsequent events on record which was also dismissed on 20-12-88. Again an application under O. 6, R. 17, read with Section 151, C.P.C. was filed on 23-12-88 by the appellant/defendant, which was also dismissed on 17-1-1989 in view of the law laid down in Arjun Singh's case (supra). Thereafter, on the same day, the trial Court pronounced the judgement directing the appellant to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the respondent No. l, the wife, Rs. 350/- per month to the children and Rs. 10000/- for meeting the expenses for the marriage of Ku. Rajni. It is this decree, which has been challenged in appeal.

(3.) Shri B. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection that this appeal cannot proceed, as the defendant/appellant has also filed an application under O. 9, R. 13, CPC, to set aside the ex parte decree, which is still pending. To this, Shri A. M. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant, stated that the appellant will not press the application and will get it dismissed, and submitted that in view of this statement, the appeal be heard; accordingly, the appeal is heard on merits.