CHANDRADEEP PRAJAPATI Vs. BASANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears for respondent in spite of repeated calls though the respondent has appeared through advocate, after service of notice upon her.

(2.) The matter was initially taken up on 22-9-2016, when the learned counsel for the appellant was present, but no one appeared for the respondent and the matter was adjourned due to non-appearance of the respondent. The matter was again listed on 16-12-2016 and in spite of repeated calls, no one appeared for the respondent and we heard the learned counsel for the appellant in part, and adjourned the case for today, also for giving a chance to learned counsel for the respondent. Today also, no one appears for the respondent in spite of repeated calls. Hence we have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(3.) The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 6th of Dec., 2007, passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Garhwa, in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 7 of 2003. The said divorce case had been filed by the appellant himself against his wife for dissolution of marriage between the parties, by a decree of divorce, under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty, desertion and adultery against his wife. The suit was decreed, but the appellant was directed to make the payment of Rs. 1,200.00 per month for maintenance of the respondent and her daughter, or to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000.00 to the respondent in lieu of monthly amount of maintenance. The appellant is aggrieved by this part of the impugned Judgment.