JHAGRU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.2005 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, in Cr. Misc. Case No. 35 of 2003, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 20.11.2003 passed in M.P. Case No. 237 of 2002 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, granting maintenance to the deserted wife to the tune of Rs. 1000/- per month, has been rejected by the Court below.

(3.) It appears that opposite party No. 2, who is the deserted wife of the petitioner, had filed application for maintenance in the Court below, which was registered as M.P. Case No. 237 of 2002. Claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and also stating that the petitioner had taken another wife, the opposite party No. 2, filed the application for maintenance. It appears from the record of said M.P. Case No. 237 of 2002 that the petitioner therein adduced her evidence and closed her evidence on 2.8.2003. Thereafter, the case was fixed for 3.9.2003 for the evidence of this petitioner in the Court below. On the date fixed, the petitioner did not appear in the Court below upon calls, even though attendance was filed on his behalf. The Court below gave further opportunity to the petitioner and fixed another date as 20.11.2003 making it clear that if the petitioner failed to appear on that date, his evidence would be closed. On the said date also, the petitioner did not appear and accordingly, the Court below closed the evidence of the petitioner and passed the order, whereby on the basis of the evidence brought on record, maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month was allowed to the deserted wife i.e. opposite party No. 2.