Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1152 (ALL)

LALMATI DEVI ALIAS MEERA DEVI v. STATE OF U P

2000-09-01

B.K.RATHI

body2000
B. K. RATHI, J. This is a revision under Sections 397/401, Cr PC against the order dated 6-11-1997 passed by the Judge Family Court, Azamgarh in Application No. 1 of 1994. 2. 1 have heard Sri N. D. Rai, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sahab Tiwari, learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2. 3. The revisionist filed an application against opposite party No. 2, her husband for maintenance under Section 125, Cr PC. In that case by an ex-pane judgment, on 6-11-1997 maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month was allowed. An application for restoration was moved and at the date hearing the father of opposite party No. 2 was present. The learned Judge Family Court, Azamgarh orally interrogated them and reduced the amount to Rs. 300/-instead of Rs. 500/- per month by the impugned order dated 6-11- 1997. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision has been preferred. 4. After considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order of the Judge, Family Court, is totally against the provisions of law. He has not followed the procedure and passed totally an arbitrary order. 5. The matter was decided by an ex-pane order. An application, was moved for recalling the order. In case the learned Judge, Family Court was of the opinion that there was sufficient ground for recall ing the order, he could have recalled the order. In that case the opportunity should have been given to the parties to produce the evidence and thereafter, the matter should have been decided according to law. However, he has not followed the correct procedure. He did not provide any opportunity to the parties to produce evidence and passed a totally an illegal and arbitrary order. 6. In the circumstances, I have no option, but to allow the revision. 7. The revision is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Judge, Family Court for re-decision in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment and in accordance with law after providing op portunity to the parties to produce evidence. The matter is very old. Notwith standing anything as observed above, the learned Judge, Family Court may award the interim maintenance to the applicant, as he deems fit and proper. Revision allowed. .