NIRAJ KUMAR @ SONU Vs. NAMITA SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed against the order dated 9.3.2016 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Maintenance Case No. 208(M) of 2012 filed by opposite party No.1-wife by which the petitioner- husband was directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party No.1.Case, in short, is that opposite party No.1 was married with petitioner and they were residing peacefully and petitioner was working as Marine Engineer in an American based ship on contract basis. It further appears that thereafter some dispute arose between them and petitioner filed Matrimonial Case No. 351 of 2010 under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Patna High Court CR. REV. No.414 of 2016(6) dt.05-07-2019 opposite party No.1 has also filed a case under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which has been registered as Agamkuan P.S.Case No. 149 of 2010. It further appears on the record that later on the present maintenance case has been filed by opposite party No.1-wife before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. Notice was issued in that case to the petitioner and on non-appearance of petitioner the case was fixed for ex parte hearing and proceeded it. It appears that three witnesses have been examined on behalf of opposite party No.1 and thereafter learned Principal Judge has allowed the maintenance case allowing maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per to opposite party No.1.Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision application has been filed.

(2.) The ground for assailing the order impugned is that without proper service of notice the maintenance case has been fixed for ex parte hearing against the petitioner, as such he has not been given an opportunity of hearing. Second ground is that the evidence of opposite party No.1 itself shows that she was in job but without considering the same an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been fixed as maintenance against the petitioner. Elaborating his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has Patna High Court CR. REV. No.414 of 2016(6) dt.05-07-2019 submitted that he has filed order sheet of the court below and in this connection he has drawn my attention towards Annexure-6 which clearly shows that on 29.8.2012 an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed for maintenance, on 17.11.2012 direction was made for issuance of notice, on 8.1.2013 the notice was returned unserved and further the order sheet dated 17.3.2015 shows that no pairvi was made on behalf of applicant-wife and the case was fixed for service of notice and notice through courier was sent to the petitioner and only on the basis of receipt of notice attached in the record but without showing service report, service of notice was found to be validly served and the case was fixed for ex party hearing against the petitioner. On that basis it has been submitted that this is not the compliance of valid service of notice on the petitioner and without considering the same, the case has been fixed for ex parte hearing. Further submission is that without hearing the petitioner or giving a chance to the petitioner to adduce evidence, the maintenance case has been allowed awarding maintenance to opposite party No.1.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has submitted that in this case the notice was sent through courier and after waiting for several dates the service of notice Patna High Court CR. REV. No.414 of 2016(6) dt.05-07-2019 was treated to be valid service, thereafter spite of sufficient opportunity was being given he had not appeared. Learned Family Court considering the entire materials on the record has passed the impugned order and there is no illegality and impropriety in the impugned order. Hence the same does not require any interference by this Court.