ARUN KUMAR SWAIN Vs. SUDESHNA SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present application challenge is to the judgment passed in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1988 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur whereby the revisional Court affirmed the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1986 allowing the application preferred under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present application are that opposite party instituted a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month from the petitioner alleging that her marriage was solemnised in the month of Falguna, 1979 according to Hindu Customs and tradition, but after five months of the marriage the petitioner had deserted her. The petitioner entered appearance, filed his objection resisting the claim of the wife and denied his liability to pay the maintenance on the ground that she had voluntarily deserted him, and she has sufficient means to maintain herself. The petitioner remained absent and was set ex parte on 25.9.87. The case stood adjourned to 15.10.87, then to 23.10.87, and thereafter to 26.10.87 when the opposite party wife adduced evidence. On the next date the impugned order granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/ - per month was passed. On 27.11.87 the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the case and for grant of an opportunity to adduce evidence. However, he allowed the said application to be dismissed for default on 23.11.87. Thereafter he preferred criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, as indicated before, challenging the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhanjanagar granting maintenance in favour of the wife - opposite party. Before the learned Sessions Judge a singular contention was raised that the order setting him ex parte and adjudicating the lis without h is presence was unjustified and he was entitled to another opportunity to put forth his version. The said submission did not find favour with the revisional Court and accordingly the revision was dismissed.

(3.) MR . Parida, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders by contending that on the date fixed, due to unforseen circumstances and for no laches of his own, the husband -petitioner could not participate in the proceeding and, therefore, under compelling circumstances, he has to suffer the impugned order. He has canvassed that in the peculiar facts and circumstances an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner so that he can adduce evidence and appropriately resist the claim of the opposite party herein.