ANITA THAKUR Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr Bidhanesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr V.M.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2.

(2.) The revision application originally came to be filed against the order dated 12.04.2007 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Maintenance Case No. 46(M) of 2004 by which the Opposite Party No. 1 was directed to pay ad-interim maintenance of L 1000/- per month to the petitioner with effect from the date of passing of the order. It appears that pursuant to notice, the Opposite Party No. 1 appeared Patna High Court CR. REV. No.398 of and also filed his counter affidavit. The same is on record. The ground taken to contest the prayer of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running a school with good number of students and thus she earns sufficiently to maintain herself. The Opposite Party No. 1 has also tried to show that due to the fault of the petitioner, the marriage is not continuing and she is living separately.

(3.) This Court had repeatedly granted indulgence and had kept adjourning the matter including issuance of notice again to the Opposite Party No. 1 which, as per the office report, has been received by him. However, he has not chosen either to appear or to contest the same through an advocate. With the Opposite Party No.1 not appearing before this Court without any cause being shown this Court on 16.4.2012 had permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to implead the B.C.C.L. through its Chairman, Dhanbad as Opposite Party No. 2, who was directed to file an affidavit with regard to the pay and other emoluments of the Opposite Party No. 1.