High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Awadh Narayan Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 8 November, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Awadh Narayan Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 8 November, 2011
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CR. REV. No.935 of 2011
               Awadh Narayan Singh, son of Late Shiv Nath Singh, resident of
               village- Baradhi, P.S.-Bagen, District- Buxar.
                                                              ...........Petitioner
                                              Versus
             1. The State of Bihar.
             2. Smt. Indrasan Devi @ Sonamati Devi, resident of village-
                Atapur, P.S.- Aiyer (Jagdishpur), District- Bhojpur.
                                                         .........Opposite Parties.
                                            -----------

4. 08.11.2011 This revision application has been filed under

Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act against the order

dated 25.03.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Ara in Misc. Case No.07/2011 by which the

prayer of the petitioner to recall the ex-parte order dated

13.05.1998 passed in Misc. Case No.105/1994 directing

the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.700/-per month (Rs.350/-

for his wife and Rs.350/- for his minor daughter) has been

rejected.

The main contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner is that no notice was served upon the

petitioner in Misc. Case No.105/1994 and the order has

been passed ex-parte.

Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, the

learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.

I.B.Pandey, the learned A.P.P. for the State.
2

It appears from the impugned order that the

learned Principal Judge has found that notice has been

issued to the petitioner under registered cover. It is

apparent from the order dated 23.06.1994 that after

awaiting for sufficient time, the learned Magistrate

proceeded for the ex-parte proceeding on 6.05.1997. The

petitioner has challenged this order dated 6.05.1997 and

13.05.1998 after about 12 years and the petitioner has filed

under Section 126 (2) of the Cr.P.C. for recall of aforesaid

orders and the wife and daughter have been running from

pillar to post for getting the maintenance amount as

aforesaid.

Considering the facts and circumstances, I do

not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

This petition is dismissed.

V.K. Pandey                          ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)