Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 84 (JHR)

Nasir v. Amina Khatoon

2015-01-19

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2015
ORDER : Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The present Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 8.5.2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in M.P. Case No. 103 of 2010 whereby, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance Rs. 8,000 per month from the date of filing of the application to his mother, i.e. O.P. No. 2. Mr. Nisith Kumar Sahani, learned Counsel, for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been paying and taking care of O.P. No. 2. Learned Counsel has drawn attention to the certified copies of order-sheets filed by the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to file his written statement or to adduce evidence during the inquiry. That neither a fair opportunity of hearing was given to counter the claim of O.P. No. 2 or to place his case in the Court below. In course of argument, learned Counsel has submitted that the opposite party is getting family pension Rs. 9,400 per month and she is residing all alone. That her three sons, i.e. the brothers of the petitioner are gainfully employed. That the petitioner has provided for the maintenance of O.P. No. 2 and his brothers and sisters right from the beginning and has borne the expenses for their schooling and education. He also provided the expenses and arranged for the marriage of his sisters. 2. That the petitioner has to pay for the expenses of his school going children and requires funds and savings to meet the expenses for the marriage of his daughters as and when they attain the age of marriage. 3. It is urged that the above material facts could not be adduced in the Court below as the conducting Counsel Mr. Adbul Sabu had expired during the proceeding due to which proper steps could not be taken by the petitioner to place his case before the Trial Court. It is submitted that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner fixing a prescribed period for adducing his evidence. It is submitted that the petitioner has paid Rs. 50,000 to the opposite party during the pendency of this revision in the Court below. It is urged that he shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of this case. 4. Mr. It is submitted that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner fixing a prescribed period for adducing his evidence. It is submitted that the petitioner has paid Rs. 50,000 to the opposite party during the pendency of this revision in the Court below. It is urged that he shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of this case. 4. Mr. Bhola Nath Rajak, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite party, has submitted that the gross amount payable by the petitioner from the date of the order is Rs. 4,16,000 and the petitioner has paid only Rs. 50,000 out of the said amount. That the petitioner willfully avoided appearance in the Court below. That the opposite party is not getting Rs. 9,400 as family pension rather she is getting family pension of Rs. 6,000 whereas the petitioner is drawing a salary of Rs. 45,000. That the opposite party is an aged lady and needs the money for treatment of her old age ailments and the petitioner be directed to pay the ordered amount. 5. Heard. Perused the impugned order and the order-sheets. It transpires that opposite party had filed a petition on 30.11.2011 praying for time to file W.S. where after the case was fixed for reconciliation and filing of written statement. It also transpires from the impugned order that petitioner was present but he did not produce any evidence to rebut the averments made by the opposite party where after the impugned order has been passed. Apparently, the petitioner was lackadaisical in not prosecuting his case. It is not disputed that the petitioner was given compassionate appointment on account of the death of his father in harness. The Counsel for opposite party has not controverted the fact that the Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner died during the proceeding and the petitioner could not adduce his evidence so as to bring on record the actual state of affair regarding the gainful employment of his brothers and to bring on record the fact that O.P. No. 2 is getting family pension. 6. Considering the fact that fair opportunity should be given to the petitioner to place his case, the matter is remitted to the Court below to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence preferably within six months from receipt of this order. During the proceeding, the petitioner, Md. 6. Considering the fact that fair opportunity should be given to the petitioner to place his case, the matter is remitted to the Court below to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence preferably within six months from receipt of this order. During the proceeding, the petitioner, Md. Nasir shall pay 50% of the arrear amount of maintenance i.e. Rs. 2,08,000 to opposite party. It has been admitted by opposite party that the petitioner has paid Rs. 50,000 to her. Thus, the remaining amount of Rs. 1,58,000 shall be paid in three installments positively by May, 2015 and he shall continue paying Rs. 5,000 as interim maintenance to the opposite party during the proceeding in the Court below. The Court below shall ensure expeditious disposal of the proceeding and shall not give any unnecessary adjournments. 7. With the said directions and observations, the impugned order is set aside to the extent as noted above and the revision is, hereby disposed of.