Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 393 (JHR)

Ujjal Pramanik v. Sabita Rani Pramanik

2009-03-19

JAYA ROY

body2009
JUDGMENT : Heard the counsel of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the instant revision application for setting aside the order dated 3.10.2008 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Choudhary, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No.157/07 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of rupees 2500/-per month to each of the applicants thus in total rupees 5000/-for both to the applicant no.1(opposite party no.1) starting from the date of this order by the 15th of each succeeding month failing which the applicants will be at liberty to realize the same through the process of law. 2. The case in brief is that the opposite party no.1 and 2 had filed a case under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner before the court of Principal Judge Family court, at Jamshedpur which was registered as Misc. Case No. 157 of 2007 stating there in that the opposite party no.1 who is applicant no.1 is the legally married wife of the party present petitioner who is opposite party in the said case. The marriage was solemnized on 9.5.2002 in accordance with Hindu religious Rights and customs. Few days after the marriage, the applicant no.1 realized that her husband and her in-laws were not at all satisfied with the presentations given by her parents as a result of which gradually she was subjected to ill-treatment and mental cruelty by all the members of her in-laws house and subsequently her husband and her in-laws started physical torture and even used to assault the applicant without any rhyme or reason and in the mean time the applicant no.1 became pregnant and the applicant no.1 was tolerating all such ill-treatment with a hope that the situation may change but in vain and she remained in the house of her husband without proper food and clothes. Thereafter when the father of the applicant no.1 came to know about he situation, under compelling circumstances he brought her to her parents house where on 3.7.2003 she gave birth to a female child. Immediately after the birth the child, the news was given to her husband and in-laws but they did not come to take her or to see the child. 3. It is further stated in the petition that the father of the applicant no. 1 the retired service man. Immediately after the birth the child, the news was given to her husband and in-laws but they did not come to take her or to see the child. 3. It is further stated in the petition that the father of the applicant no. 1 the retired service man. The applicant no.1 has got no independent source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and her minor baby and she is completely dependent upon her retired father. The opposite party (present petitioner) is a permanent employee of Tayo Ltd, Gamharia and earning rupees 15000/-per month. Hence the applicant has prayed for rupees 6000/-per month as their maintenance allowance from the opposite party. 4. After sufficient service of the notice, the opposite party (petitioner) appeared in the said case but did not file any show cause. 5. Applicant/opposite party no.1 examined two witnesses including herself to prove her case. As the opposite parties did not appear, their testimony remains unchallenged. As the applicant/opposite party no.1 has succeeded in establishing that the opposite party inspite of having sufficient means is neglecting and refusing to maintain the applicants. She has further proved that the salary of her husband is 14000/-per month. The trial court after considering all these circumstances awarded a sum of rupees 2500/-for each of the applicants as a monthly maintenance allowance. 6. Mr. A.K.Sahani learned counsel of the petitioner submits that on 12.2.2008 the Presiding Officer was transferred and no date was provided to him for further hearing and it was disclosed to him by the office clerk that for the next date a notice will be served upon him. As he has not received any further notice, he could not appear in the said case. 7. It is further contended that the net salary of the petitioner, comes after deduction only rupees 6000/-and he has to maintain his old father, mother and two unmarried sisters, one is of physical handicapped (deaf and dumb) and also two of his unemployed brothers. 8. Perused the impugned order and the revision petition and its Annexures. The Annexure-2 is the order sheet of Misc. Case No.157 of 2007 which shows that the present petitioner who is the opposite party appeared on 11.1.2008 in this case through his lawyer and prayed for time for filing his show cause. The case was adjourned and again fix for 12.2.2008. The Annexure-2 is the order sheet of Misc. Case No.157 of 2007 which shows that the present petitioner who is the opposite party appeared on 11.1.2008 in this case through his lawyer and prayed for time for filing his show cause. The case was adjourned and again fix for 12.2.2008. Thereafter as the P.O. has been transferred the case was again adjourned on 29.2.2008 and thereafter again on 11.4.2008. From the order sheet I find the case was adjourned for numbers of time and ultimately fix for ex-parte hearing. When the petitioner once appeared in the said case there is no question of giving any further notice to him. It is his duty or his counsel to appear on the date so fixed in the said case. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he has not been given opportunity to contest the case it is not at all tenable. 9. The petitioner has annexed (Annexure-3 Series) his few payment slips of the period from 1.1.2008 to 30.9.2008 which shows that his total earnings Rs. 11, 400/-approximately per month but he has very cleverly taken several loans on several items and reduced the amount of his net payment to rupees 6400/-approximately which is only a device for depriving the applicants from getting the proper maintenance. 10. The petitioner has not stated in his petition that neither he nor his father has any other source of income except the petitioner’s aforesaid salary. Admittedly the opposite party no.1 is wife of the petitioner. 11. Considering all these facts and circumstances I do not find any merit in this revision application. Accordingly the revision application is dismissed.