IKRAM ALI Vs. MUMTAZ BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order, dated 24-12-2001, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, in Misc. Case No. 32/2002, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., directing the second party- petitioner herein to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.500/- to the first party-opposite party-herein for her maintenance and a sum of Rs.500 as maintenance allowance for their minor child with effect from the date of passing of the order.

(2.) Heard Mr. A.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the second party-petitioner, and Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the second party-opposite party.

(3.) In this revision, it has not been agitated that the evidence on record were not sufficient to grant maintenance as has been done by the impugned order. What is, however, contended is that the second party-petitioner could not adduce evidence on account of the fact that he had to accompany with his aunt to Patna for operation of her fractured leg and, on returning him, he contacted his advocate, tried to settle the dispute and came to the Court on the date fixed i.e., on 21-12-2001 and, on reaching the Court, he came to learn, on that day, i.e., on 21- 12-2001, that the proceeding had been fixed for arguments, whereupon he, on that very day, i.e., on 21-12-2001, filed, in the said proceeding, a petition and kept a photocopy thereof, wherein he had prayed for allowing him to examine his witnesses. It is also submitted by the second-petitioner that the learned Court below had accepted the said petition and asked the petitioner to come to the Court on 24-12-2001, but when the petitioner went to the Court on 24-12-2001, his Advocate informed him that the judgment had already been pronounced in the proceeding.