(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.
(2.) The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order dated 09.01.2018 passed in Maintenance Case No. 84 of 2016, by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur by which the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month maintenance to the opposite party, who is his wife.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order is ex parte and there was no valid service of notice on the petitioner in the proceeding and, thus, he was unaware of the same and has filed the present revision within the limitation period. It was submitted that the order has been passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), which does not make the wife living in adultery entitled to receive any maintenance. It was submitted that in Divorce Case No. 294 of 2013, Registration No. 354 of 2014, filed by the petitioner against the opposite party and one Sunny Rajak, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur by judgment dated 11.10.2017, had dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party on the ground that she was living in adultery with Sunny Rajak. It was submitted that in the said case, Sunny Rajak had contested whereas the opposite party had chosen not to contest. Learned counsel submitted that once a competent Court had held the opposite party to be living in adultery with Sunny Rajak, Section 125(4) of the Code disentitles her to any maintenance from the petitioner.