C.A. Rahim, J. - (1.) This is a revision against the order dated 3.1.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 31.8.1989. The revisionist, as opposite party, in the court below took a plea that Smt. Ram Kali was not the wife of the revisionist. The learned Magistrate held the same and accordingly the petition for maintenance was rejected. While sitting on revision the learned Sessions Judge observed that Smt. Ram Kali failed to prove the second marriage of her husband and allowed the revision.
(2.) Learned Addl., Government Advocate, has stated that the order was passed ex-parte and there is nothing in the order to prove that any notice was served on the husband. He has also contended that there was no issue before the learned Sessions Judge whether Smt. Ram Kali proved the second marriage of her husband. On the contrary the issue was whether Smt. Ram Kali was married to the revisionist.
(3.) After going through the record and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge I do not find that such a finding of the learned Magistrate was at all discussed. Moreover, I find that the learned Sessions Judge missed the said point and probed whether Smt. Ram Kali was able to prove the second marriage of her husband. This was not the issue either before the learned Magistrate or before him. It also appeared that in that judgment nothing has been noted why the case was taken for ex-parte hearing Considering both these points I find that the finding of the learned, Sessions Judge is not proper and is liable to be set aside. The learned Addl. Government Advocate also found nothing to support the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and ultimately conceded.;