NETAJI BHOI Vs. BIJAYA LAXMI BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been directed against the exparte judgment dtd. 30/3/2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara in Criminal Proceeding No. 214 of 2011/CRP No. 373 of 2013, which was initiated under Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the opposite party-wife.

(2.) The wife of the petitioner who is the sole opposite party filed a petition under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner with a prayer for grant of maintenance of Rs.5,000.00 per month with Rs.10,000.00 as litigation expenses. In the said petition, the opposite party has stated that both she and the petitioner are governed under Mitakshar School of Hindu Law and their marriage was solemnized on 12/7/2007 as per Hindu Customs. At the time of marriage the petitioner was given different household articles, gold ornaments as per his demand and the demand of his family members. After six months of the marriage, the opposite party noticed change in behavior of the petitioner and his family members as they were not satisfied with the dowry given. Accordingly the petitioner started demanding Rs.25,000.00 to be brought from her father so that he could expand his stationery- cum-betel shop. As her father was not in a position to meet such demand, she was tortured mentally and physically and she was not provided food properly. After the father of the opposite party came to know about this, he gave Rs.6,000.00 to the petitioner and requested not to torture her. However in June, 2009, the petitioner left the opposite party for her father's house and made it clear to her that unless she brings the rest amount demanded, she would be harmed. Thereafter the father of the opposite party gave Rs.8,000.00 to the petitioner and left the opposite party in the house of the petitioner. Again the opposite party was tortured and after some time the opposite party came to know about the illicit relationship of the petitioner with his elder sister-in-law and when she protested, she was again assaulted by the petitioner. When the petitioner tried to kill the opposite party, the opposite party was rescued and since then she has been staying at her parent's house in a miserable condition. It is in this background she filed an application under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. praying for maintenance and litigation expenses. Therein she stated that the petitioner earns more than Rs.30,000.00 per month from the betel-cum-stationery shop and agriculture. Thus despite having sufficient means he is not maintaining her.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that though in the said case after receipt of summons, the petitioner had engaged his advocate to proceed with the case but the Advocate did not take any steps and the petitioner was set ex parte. In such background the matter proceeded and ultimately same was dismissed on 13/6/2014 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara. Challenging the said order the opposite party filed RPFAM No. 74 of 2014 before this Court and this Court vide order dtd. 24/11/2015 allowed the same and remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication and for passing necessary orders. It is in this background the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment directing the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000.00 per month from the date of the application subject to adjustment of interim maintenance, if any, paid. It is the further case of the petitioner the impugned order was not within his knowledge. When the petitioner received the information from the local police on 8/1/2019 about issuance of N.B.W. against the petitioner, he approached his Advocate who immediately handed over the file to the petitioner and in order to know the exact status of the case he contacted another Advocate, who intimated the petitioner that the matter has been decided ex- parte due to non-taking of steps by the previous Advocate.