PRADEEP KUMAR KASLIWAL(JAIN) Vs. SAPNA KASLIWAL(JAIN)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Family Court, Ajmer whereby the Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.2,500/- to respondent No.1, Smt. Sapna Kaliwal, and the same amount to respondent No.2, Master Nipun Jain.

(2.) Mr. M.F. Baig, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the said impugned order has been passed ex parte against the petitioner. The case was listed on 18.11.2008 for the purpose of seeing if the parties could compromise, and if not, then interim order was to be passed. However, on the said date, the petitioner could not appear before the Court. Therefore, the case was adjourned till 10.12.2008. Since the petitioner could not appear before the Court on 10.12.2008, the petitioner sent a telegram to the Family Court. However, despite the fact that the telegram had been sent, still on 10.12.2008 the Court proceeded to record the evidence of respondent No.1 and to close the evidence. On the next day, an ex-parte order was passed. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner should have been given ample opportunities for being heard, instead of closing the evidence just after the next two dates of the proceeding.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Peush Nag, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has contended that ample opportunities were, indeed, given to the petitioner to place his side of the story. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in closing the evidence and in proceeding to pronounce the judgment.