Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1243 (JHR)

Sushil Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2006-10-10

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2006
ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The order dated 9.6.2000, granting maintenance to the wife, the opposite party No. 2, is under challenge before this Court by the husband petitioner. 2. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that even though the order has been passed on 9.6.2000 directing the petitioner, alleged husband, to pay the maintenance, the petitioner came to know about the said order only on 7.10.2004 on which date the wife (opposite party No. 2) filed an application before the trial Court to remand him in respect of maintenance case where it was alleged that maintenance amount has not been paid. Only after coming to know of the proceeding under Section 125, CrPC in which ex parte order was passed, the petitioner chose to file the revision before this Court. 3. Since, there was delay of four years and odd, an application has been filed to condone the delay and the said delay was condoned. Now, the main contention urged by the counsel for the petitioner is that he was not at all the husband of the opposite party No. 2 and the children were not born to him through the alleged wife. It is also submitted that Vakalatnama which was said to have been filed on his behalf, has not been signed by him and a fraud has been played on the Court by the wife and ex parte order has been obtained behind his back. 4. This aspect cannot be gone into by this Court, but the fact remains that the petitioner-husband was remanded by the Court below on the application filed by the wife, when he came to the Court for surrendering in the case registered under Section 498-A, IPC. This Court has also taken into consideration the various circumstances under which delay of four years and ten months have been caused in preferring the instant revision. So, in view of the statement made by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to give proper opportunity to the husband (petitioner), to place the materials before the Court below with reference to the above aspects. 5. I have heard the counsel for the opposite parties also. 6. The order dated 9.6.2000 is set aside. So, in view of the statement made by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to give proper opportunity to the husband (petitioner), to place the materials before the Court below with reference to the above aspects. 5. I have heard the counsel for the opposite parties also. 6. The order dated 9.6.2000 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to take up the matter and conduct inquiry on all the aspects by summoning both the parties and pass an order after giving opportunity to both the parties, in accordance with law. 7. Since the matter relates to the year 1999, the trial Court is directed to give priority to this case and finish the inquiry, as expeditiously as possible. 8. However, in view of the circumstance, it is to be noticed that the opposite party No. 3, Basant Lal, is an unnecessary party. 9. This revision stands disposed of. Revision disposed of.