Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 281 (UTT)

Yograj Khanna v. Rekha Khanna

2003-11-21

IRSHAD HUSSAIN

body2003
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Irshad Hussain, J. : Heard Sri Arvind Vashistha learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri J. C. Belwal learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is a criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code' ) read with section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, against the judgment dated 28-8-2002, whereby the application of the respondent under section 125 of the 'Code' was allowed exparte and she was awarded maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of the presentation of the application. 3. From perusal of the impugned judgment it is evident that the petitioner husband did not participate in the proceedings and no written statement was filed by him. The order does not indicate that the revisionist was properly served with the summons of the case. Since the judgment is exparte the revisionist has had no opportunity to put forward his defence against the application for maintenance and also in regard to his capacity to pay the maintenance allowance. These were the essential ingredients for effective decision of the matter before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court and, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice that the exparte judgment is set aside and the revisionist is afforded an opportunity to file his written statement and contest the proceedings on merit. 4. Considering the above facts the impugned judgment dated 28-08-2002 deserves to be allowed. The revision petition is allowed and the exparte judgment dated 28 - 08 - 2002 is set aside. However it is directed that the revisionist shall pay interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month to the respondent from the date of this order. The respondent shall however have liberty to move an application for grant of interim maintenance before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court who shall pass an appropriate order on merit, if necessary, without guided by the quantum of interim maintenance allowance fixed by this order. 5. The revisionist shall file written statement within a period of six weeks and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court thereafter shall fix the date for the evidence in the case and decide the application under section 125 of the 'Code' on merit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.