Jagdish Chander Sundriyal @ Jagdish Chander Pandey v. Chief Judge, Family Court, Nainital and another

I have heard Mr. Mangal Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the revisionist and Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent no.2 as well as Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for respondent no.1. Perused the entire material available on file.

#3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Radha Devi (respondent no.2) moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that she got married with the revisionist on 8.12.1997 as per Hindu RITES. It is alleged that after the marriage the revisionist was not happy with the respondent no.2 due to getting lesser dowry in marriage and he used to taunt her for the same. He used 2 to quarrel with her on the matter of dowry and also used to ask her to bring Rs.50,000/- from her father(cid:146)s house. When she told about the demand of the revisionist to her father, her father gave Rs.10,000/- to the revisionist by way of demand draft. It is further alleged that in February, 2003, the revisionist demanded Rs.40,000/- and when respondent no.2 showed her inability to give the same, the revisionist ousted her from the house and it is alleged that since then she is residing at her parental house. It is further stated that the revisionist is working at Noida and getting salary of more than Rs.5,000/- per month. On the other hand, it is stated that respondent no.2 is having no source of income. She does not any work so as to maintain herself. With the same averments, an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month was sought as maintenance allowance by the respondent no.2 against the revisionist. The notices were issued to the revisionist but the same returned back unserved. After that the publication of notice was made in the newspaper and then the service was deemed sufficient upon the revisionist but even then the revisionist did not appear before the court below and thereafter the matter was proceeded ex-parte. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital vide his judgment and order dated

14.10.2004 passed the order against the revisionist as mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been preferred.

#4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the court below has erred in law by passing the ex- parte order against the revisionist as the revisionist was not aware of filing of the case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent no.2. I do not find force in the argument 3 advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist. In the present case, the respondent no.2 moved an application for maintenance on 12.11.2003 before the court below, on which the court below issued summons against the revisionist but the same did not return back. Thereafter, a registered notice was also sent to the revisionist, which returned back unserved. After that publication of notice was made in the newspaper and thereafter the service was deemed sufficient upon the revisionist and the case was then proceeded ex-parte against the revisionist. Thus, I am of the view that the court below, after adopting the prescribed procedures as per law, has rightly passed the ex-parte order against the revisionist.

#5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further argued that the court below awarded the amount of maintenance against the revisionist without appreciating the evidence on record. There is also no force in this argument. Respondent no.2-Smt. Radha Devi has levelled a charge against the revisionist that he used to torture her for the demand of dowry. He has a demand of Rs.50,000/-. On 18.8.1998, father of the respondent no.2 gave Rs.10,000/- to the revisionist but even his greed did not stop and for the demand of Rs.40,000/- he ousted the respondent no.2 from his house. In support of her case, respondent no.2 examined herself as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of the application made by her u/s 125 Cr.P.C. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the court below after considering the fact that the revisionist is working in a Limited Company at Noida and is getting salary of more than Rs.5,000/- per month whereas the respondent no.2 is having no source of income, rightly awarded Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance the respondent no.2 against revisionist. 4

#6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved that the respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is unable to maintain herself and due to ousting by revisionist for the demand of dowry, she is compelled to live at her parental house. On the other hand, the revisionist is intentionally neglecting her though he has got sufficient means to maintain her. Thus, the court below has rightly determined the monthly maintenance to be paid to the respondent no.2 for her maintenance against the revisionist as discussed above.

#7. In view of the above-said discussion, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment and order dated 14.10.2004 passed by Principal Judge, Nainital.

#8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 19.10.2006 passed by the Court stands vacated. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) July 19, 2010