- (1.)BY way of filing the present revision petition, the petitioner (orig. respondent-husband) has challenged the judgment and order dated 6. 9. 2006 passed in Criminal Application No. 678 of 2005, passed by the Family Court, at Ahmedabad, by which the learned Judge of the Family Court has partly allowed the application filed by the present respondent " orig. applicant and directed the petitioner husband to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- p. m. towards maintenance from the date of the application, i. e. 10. 3. 2005 and also ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- towards cost.
(2.)THE brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner husband got married with the respondent wife in the year 2002 as per Hindu rituals at Singerva Taluka at Ahmedabad. After the marriage, on 16. 10. 2002, the respondent wife left the matrimonial house to her parental house and thereafter she never came back to the house of the present petitioner husband. It is alleged that though the respondent wife had made several allegations like mental and physical torture, the petitioner's efforts to call her back to his house, but in vain. The petitioner ultimately sent a notice through his advocate to the respondent wife and even visited her house several times, but she was not willing to come back and to stay with the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent wife filed a case before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 8652 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 498 of IPC, which is pending before the said Court. It is alleged that the respondent wife preferred Criminal Application No. 678 of 2005 under Section 125 of Cr. PC on 10. 3. 2005 for maintenance in the Family Court, at Ahmedabad. The learned Judge of the Family Court has passed the impugned order which is under challenge in this revision application, as aforesaid.
(3.)IT is submitted by learned advocate Ms. Sejal Shah that because of some reasons, the petitioner could not remain present before the Court and therefore, did not get an opportunity to cross examine the respondent wife as well as could not file reply to the application and hence only on the basis of the chief examination of respondent wife, the order has been passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court and therefore, the learned advocate has requested this Court to remand the matter to the Family Court for fresh decision.