Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1693 (ALL)

Ashwani Misra v. Abha Diwedi

2012-07-27

ANURAG KUMAR

body2012
Anurag Kumar, J.— Present revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 24.4.2009 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, in Case No. 291 of 2008 (Abha Diwedi Vs. Ashwani Mishra) granting interim maintenance of Rs. 1000/- p.m. to the sole opposite party. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailed the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte; notice was never served on the revisionist and without service of notice the impugned order has been passed; therefore, the order for interim maintenance is illegal as that could be passed only after service of the notice as per the second and the third provisos to section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the sole respondent opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the revisionist and stated that an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was presented by the wife-respondent on 28.7.2009, but she is not getting the interim maintenance. He contended that the impugned order is totally justified and the revision deserves to be dismissed. After hearing the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without the notice ever having been served on the husband-revisionist. The relevant second and the third provisos to section 125 Cr.P.C. may be quoted hereunder as follows: "Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person. From the above it is clear that interim monthly maintenance can be granted during pendency of the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. to a wife or such child, father or mother, as the case may be, who has moved an application, to be paid by the person against whom an application therefor has been moved. From the above it is clear that interim monthly maintenance can be granted during pendency of the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. to a wife or such child, father or mother, as the case may be, who has moved an application, to be paid by the person against whom an application therefor has been moved. The third proviso says also that such an application, as far as possible, be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of the notice of the application upon such a person. The record of the case shows that there was no service of notice of the application for interim maintenance on the revisionist and the impugned order has been passed without such notice. There are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and the law is settled that an opportunity of rebuttal must be granted to the opposite party against whom an order is to be passed. Moreso, when there is a clear law on the subject quoted above, that an order of interim maintenance is to be passed only after service of notice. In view of the above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the present revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.4.2009 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, in Case No. 291 of 2008 (Abha Diwedi Vs. Ashwani Mishra) granting interim maintenance of Rs. 1000/- p.m. to the sole opposite party, is set aside. However, in the circumstances of the case, lower court is directed to dispose of the application for interim maintenance of the opposite party (wife) within a period of one month from the date of filing of certified copy of this order, positively, if any such application is pending/filed before him. Revisionist is directed to appear in the lower court and no further notice is required to be sent to him. _____________