SAIBAL DEY Vs. CHAITALI DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been preferred against the order dated 22/12/2004 passed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 116 of 2004 by the Judge, Family Court, Kolkata. Case of the petitioner is that O.P. No. 1 is his legally married wife. But soon after the marriage trouble started in between them and finally the O.P.; No. 1 left the marital home on 4/8/2003 and since then she is staying at her paternal house. The O.P./wife filed a criminal case against the petitioner and his family members. Subsequently on 30/7/2004 she filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C, against the petitioner in the Family Court, Kolkata praying for maintenance. The learned Court below fixed 14/9/2004 for the petitioner to file show cause as to why the prayer for maintenance and ad interim maintenance would not be allowed. However, no process was served upon the petitioner. Inspite of that, the Learned Judge fixed 4/11/2004 for ex-parte hearing and on that day in absence of the petitioner, examined the Opposite Party as witness and allowed the prayer for interim maintenance to the extent of Rs. 3,000.00 per month and Rs. 10,000.00 towards, litigation cost. By the said order he also fixed 20/12/2004 for exparte hearing of the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. On 22/12/2004 the case was allowed ex-parte in favour of the O.P./wife and the Learned Judge directed the petitioner/husband to pay Rs. 3,000.00 per month to his wife towards maintenance and to pay a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000.00. According to the petitioner the impugned order, as passed by the Court below, suffers from material illegality. There was no mention whatsoever in the order of the Learned Judge that the petitioner was intentionally evading the appearance in the Court below. The petitioner has further claimed that the Learned Judge, before passing the impugned order did not apply his judicial mind at all and whimsically and mechanically allowed the prayer for maintenance in favour of the wife. He has further claimed that his monthly income does not exceed Rs. 3,000/- and the Learned Judge was not justified in relying upon the statement made by the wife regarding the alleged fabulous income of the petitioner/husband. No reason whatsoever was assigned its to the amount of litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-, as passed in favour of the wife. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, as passed by the Learned Court below against him, the petitioner/husband has preferred this revisional application on the ground that the order, as passed by the Court below suffers from material illegality and without any basis whatsoever and as it has caused failure of Jpstice, so this Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., should intervene into the matter.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the O.P./wife on the other hand submits that the impugned order, as passed by the learned Court below is perfectly justified and although the petitioner/husband was aware of the proceeding, still as he did not take any step, .so the learned Court below was justified in proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner/husband. According to him, as there is no illegality in the said order, so there is no scope for interference by this Court. He further argued that there is remedy provided in Section 126, Cr.P.C for setting aside the ex-parte order and without invoking such jurisdiction it is not permissible for the petitioner to come directly to the High Court for setting aside the impugned order. In this respect, he has cited decision reported in AIR 1983 SC page 67 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors.

(3.) I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for both the sides and also perused the orders as passed by the learned Court below. So far as the decision reported in AIR 1983 SC page 67 (supra) is concerned it appears that the said decision was passed in a case filed as per provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act when a prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding was made before the High Court. It has been held in the said decision that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided in the statute. There cannot be any dispute regarding the legal principle as enunciated by the Apex Court. But so far as the present case is concerned, it appears that it is a proceedingfiled under Section 125, Cr.P.C. This Section 125, Cr.P.C., has been introduced in the statute only to provide maintenance to the deserving persons and in order to prevent vagrancy. Of course there is provision in Section 126, Cr.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order of the Court concerned by showing sufficient reasons, but at the same time we must not forget that the very basis of the order, as passed by the learned Court below is under challenge before this Court. It has been alleged by the husband that the learned Court below mechanically and whimsically passed the ex-parte order both in respect of interim and final maintenance in favour of the wife. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, in support of this contention has relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1987 Kerala 110 Balan Nairv. Bhavani Amma Valsalamma & Ors.; 1991 Criminal Law Journal page 2056 Sun/7 Kumar Sabharwal v. Mrs. Neelam Sabharwal & Ors. and 1990 Criminal Law Journal page 2265 S. Bhupinder Singh Makkar v. Smt. Narinder Kaur& Ors. I have considered all those decisions and the submissions of the learned Advocates for both the sides. I have already pointed out that this petition has been filed as per provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C. It is the admitted position that High Court will not hesitate to intervene into an order where there is manifest error on the face of the order itself and when it appears clearly to the High Court that the order in question has caused failure of justice. Undoubtedly the petitioner could move the Court below for setting aside the ex-parte order. But that does not mean that the petitioner will be debarred from drawing attention of this Court in order to show that the order of the learned Court below has actually caused failure of justice. Keeping this position in mind, let us now see whether it will be fair and proper for this Court to intervene into the order as passed by the learned Court below. If we look into the provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C. then it will appear that before proceeding ex-parte it is the duty of the Court to come to a definite finding that the husband was intentionally avoiding the said proceeding by not appearing before the Court. But if we look into the copy of the orders, as passed by the Court below, then it will appear that nowhere it has been mentioned in those orders that the husband was avoiding the said proceeding intentionally. True it is that on 14/9/2004 the learned Court below observed "Mr. Saikat Kundu appearing for the O.P. has submitted that Saibal Dey is out of station. Therefore, he cannot appear today. In the circumstances the O.P. is aware of this case.