SHIM CHANDRA MURMU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the Opposite parties.

(2.) NONE appeared for the petitioner. The case was earlier called on 25.3.2011. On that date none appeared for the petitioner. It was mentioned that the case will be taken up on Monday (28.3.2011). However, on Monday, the case could not be taken up. Today, when the case was called out, counsel for the petitioner was again absent. This shows the indifferent attitude of the counsel for the petitioner in prosecuting his case.

(3.) THE facts of the case in the present revision petition was looked into with the assistance of the counsel for the opposite parties. From the perusal of the judgment of the trial court, it is found that the petitioner had been negligent in prosecuting his case even before the trial court. Despite order of ex -parte the petitioner has not been able to produce any witness before the trial court. In that view of the matter, the trial court has proceeded to decide the merit of the case only on the evidence of the wife. The trial court has held on the basis of evidence of wife, which was unrebutted, that there was marriage and husband is neglecting to maintain the wife and her daughter. Since there was no evidence on rebuttal, there was no way out for the trial court than to accept the evidence of the wife -applicant before the trial court.