HIMANSU BHUSAN @ SEKHAR SAHOO Vs. SATYABHAMA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, the petitioner challenges the order dated 06.04.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Angul under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. in C.T. Case No.1769 of 2003.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the opposite party filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.J.M., Angul claiming maintenance of Rs.5000/ - per month. On 20.02.2004 an ex parte order was passed granting maintenance of Rs.2000/ - per month.

(3.) HE further submitted that without giving any opportunity to the present petitioner to substantiate his case regarding non -service of the notice and without application of judicial mind, the ex parte order was passed basing upon the report of the Process Server, which is completely illegal.