CHAMANJEET Vs. AMARJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court impugning order dtd. 10/1/2013, passed by learned District Judge (Family Court), Faridabad, whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and order dtd. 4/7/2013, whereby the maintenance petition filed under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent-wife and the minor has been allowed by awarding them maintenance @ Rs.2,000.00 per month to the wife and @ Rs.1,000.00 per month to the minor.

(2.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was married with respondent No.1 on 13/3/2009. Thereafter, due to temperamental differences, the matrimonial discord took place and the respondent-wife filed an FIR No.56, dtd. 27/10/2012 under Ss. . She also filed a petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of maintenance. He has submitted that the valid service was never effected upon the petitioner and thus, he remained totally unaware of the proceedings pending in the petition filed under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. and despite that learned Family Court proceeded ex parte against the petitioner. He has submitted that the proceedings in the maintenance petition commenced without serving and hearing the petitioner and ex parte judgment dtd. 4/7/2013 was passed by the learned District Judge without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that subsequent to the passing of the order by the learned Family Court, respondent No.1 on 11/10/2015 entered into a compromise with the petitioner and both of them started living happily as husband and wife. He has submitted that the compromise arrived at between both of them has also been placed on record. He has further submitted that again some matrimonial dispute took place between both the husband and the wife, however, the same could be resolved with the intervention of the respectables and the respondent-wife gave an affidavit dtd. 21/9/2016. He has submitted that despite all these, the respondent-wife invoked the ex parte order dtd. 4/7/2013 and filed an execution petition before the learned Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Faridabad. He submits that the petitioner condoned the past twice and both the husband and wife started residing together, however, the respondent-wife intentionally filed the execution petition only to harass the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that proper procedure was never adopted by the Court for serving the notice upon the petitioner and thus, ex parte proceedings were totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that wife is living separately without any sufficient cause and thus she is not entitled for the maintenance as granted by the learned Family Court and hence, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

(3.) Heard.