IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.124 of 2009
Kishore Sah, son of late Saryug Sah, resident of village-
Parokiya, P.S.-Sonbarsha, District- Saharsa.
Versus
1. Radha Devi, wife of Kishore Sah and D/O of Sri Sah,
resident of village-Manuari, P.S.-Sonbarsha, District-
Saharsa.
2. Raj Kumar Sah.
3. Arun Sah.
4. Parvati Kumari
(All minor sons (2 & 3) and daughter (4) of Kishore Sah,
represented through their natural guardian Radha Devi (mother)
residents of village-Manuari, P.S.-Sonbarsha, District- Saharsa)
-----------
5. 30.08.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision
application under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act
against the order dated 2.07.2008 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa in Misc. Case
No.52/06 by which he has been directed to pay total sum
of Rs.1100/-per month for maintenance of his wife and
three children.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Even after
service of notice, the opposite parties have not appeared.
The main grievance of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed ex-
parte without giving any notice of the proceeding to the
petitioner. He has also filed a petition dated 27.09.2008 for
recall of ex-parte order, but it has been rejected by order
2
dated 19.12.2008. The petitioner has filed an information
report as to whether the petitioner has appointed any
Advocate in the proceeding in Misc. Case No.52/06 or not.
A report dated 9.08.2008 has been given by the court
concerned that no Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of
the opposite party, who is at present petitioner in this case.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he
has no notice about the case, he could not appear in the
case and could not place his case in that proceeding and as
such, the ex-parte order dated 2.07.2008 should be set
aside. He has further submitted that the petitioner is ready
to file a petition under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. for setting
aside the ex-parte order within three weeks.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner
and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the
learned court has mentioned the order dated 19.12.2008
that notices have properly been issued against the opposite
party/husband. Since 22.06.2007, the opposite party/
husband of Misc. Case No.52/06 has been represented by
the lawyer and the court on 3.12.2007 ordered to proceed
ex-parte hearing. Hence the petitioner/husband cannot
agitate that the proceeding has been concluded without his
3
knowledge, whereas on the other hand, the petitioner has
filed a copy of the application for information vide
Annexure-2. It further appears that no Vakalatnama has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner in the aforesaid Misc.
Case No.52/06, but some one was making Pairvi without
filing any Vakalatnama executed by the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the
impugned order dated 2.07.2008 is set aside subject to the
condition that the petitioner will go on paying the amount
of the maintenance granted vide the impugned order dated
2.07.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge during the
pendency of the petition to be filed by the petitioner within
a period of three weeks. In case the petitioner does not file
any petition under Section 126 Cr.P.C./ does not pay
Rs.1100/-per month to his wife for maintenance of herself
and her children, the impugned order will revive and the
law will take its own course.
With this observation and direction, this petition
stands disposed of.
V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)