LAWS(P&H)-1996-9-163

BALI RAM Vs. VIDYA DEVI

Decided On September 19, 1996
BALI RAM Appellant
V/S
VIDYA DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the maintenance has approached this Court after he failed to get the same quashed in the revision petition No. 9 of 1995, decided on 19.3.1996 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. The wife of the petitioner and the minor children, i.e. the respondents have filed application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against the petitioner. Their application for interim maintenance was dismissed on 27.7.1989. The revision petition filed against the said order was accepted, after the matter was sent back to the trial Court, the trial Court directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance. Against that order, the petitioner filed revision petition, but it is an admitted fact that the same was dismissed for default. The file was then sent back to the trial Court. The matter was taken up by the trial Court on 19.10.1991 and notice was issued for 30.11.1991 to the petitioner. Vide order dated 7.12.1991, it was observed by the trial Court that notice was given to Shri S.C. Sethi, Advocate of Tohana, who was counsel for the petitioner but he had reported that the notice be given to the petitioner because he had not contacted him after filing of the revision petition.

(2.) THE evidence was then recorded inter alia and the petition was then decided asking the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs. 400/ - per month.

(3.) IT transpires from the record that on 15.2.1992, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 C.P.C. alleging that notice was not served on him, his absence was not intentional and that the order dated 16.1.1992 passed ex parte be set aside. Evidence was led by both the sides and vide order dated 17.4.1995, the said application of the petitioner was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed the Revision Petition No. 9 of 1995 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.