AMIT MANDAL Vs. PUNAM DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) The present criminal revision application has been filed against the order dtd. 20/7/2016 passed by the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar in connection with Maintenance Case No. 207 of 2012 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4000.00 per month to the respondent no.1 and 2 (O.P. No.1 and 2 who are wife and minor son) in the first week of every month payable from the date of order i.e. from 20/7/2016.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order under challenged dtd. 20/7/2016 is basically an ex-parte order. Counsel further submits that admittedly the petitioner was married with respondent no.1 on 4/7/2010 and from this marriage he has one son who is respondent No.2. Counsel further submits that respondent No.1 went to the matrimonial home after few days of the marriage, she used to torture and humiliate the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has filed an application for restitution of conjugal right against the wife (respondent No.1) when she has not appeared in this case then petitioner filed an application for restitution of conjugal right bearing Case no. 78 of 2013 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar. The case of the petitioner was allowed and a decree was passed in his favour on 20/6/2016. Counsel further submits that respondent no.1 is not ready to live with the petitioner and therefore, he has filed an Execution Case No. 03 of 2016 in family court but even after every effort respondent No.1 (wife) has not opted to appear in the said case. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the wife (Respondent no.1) had filed a Complaint Case under Ss. 323, 406 and 498A of the I.P.C. read with Sec. - of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Counsel further submits that not only wife rather her sister also filed another Compliant Case bearing No. 2150 of 2012 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar under Sec. s 302, 406 and 498A of the I.P.C. read with Sec. - of the D.P. Act against her husband. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is very much eager to start a new conjugal life with her wife but she refused to live with the petitioner without any reasonable cause and this is one of the ingredient for not paying maintenance under Sec. 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. and as such, he submits that the order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar which is under challenge suffers from illegality and need correctness.