SUSHIL TONGYA Vs. KALPNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision petition, the applicant has challenged the validity of the order dated 2.6.2017 passed by I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in Misc.Cr.case No.359/2016 whereby the application moved on behalf of the applicant under section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 29.1.2016 for grant of maintenance to the non-applicant has been rejected.

(2.) The facts which have lead to filing the present application are that marriage was solemnized between the applicant and non-applicant as per Hindu rituals and customs. According to the application filed by the non-applicant under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., one daughter was born out of the wedlock of the applicant and non-applicant. The behaviour of the applicant was cruel towards the non-applicant and he also ignored her and his daughter, in these circumstances she was compelled to live in her parental house. She is unable to maintain herself and she does not have any source of income whereas the applicant is having Fabrication factory in Kibe Compound, Indore and he is earning Rs.30 Lacs per annum. Accordingly a prayer was made for a direction to the applicant to pay Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant.

(3.) After filing of the aforesaid application, a notice was issued to the applicant by ordinary mode on the address of 228, Anoop Nagar, Indore however all the notices were received unserved with the report that the applicant is not residing there. His brother, namely Vimal was found present there but he refused to receive the notice by contending that now he has no connection with his brother, applicant-Sushil. When the notices were not served on the applicant by ordinary mode, then non- applicant moved an application under Order V Rule 20 of the CPC for substituted service which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 14.9.2015 and notice was published in daily Hindi Newspaper 'Patrika' edition, Indore. However inspite of that the applicant did not appear before the trial court, therefore an ex-parte proceeding was initiated against him and the case for fixed for recording of the evidence of the non-applicant. After considering the evidence recorded by the non-applicant, trial court directed the applicant to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance.