- (1.) THIS interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 401 days in filing the revision application which has been filed against the ex-parte order of maintenance passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Ranchi Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 to 4, who were noticed in the limitation matter. In the facts stated in the interlocutory application, as also in view of the fact that ex-parte order was passed without proper notice to the petitioner, the delay in filing the revision application is hereby condoned. Accordingly, the I.A. No.2723 of 2009 is allowed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) THIS application is directed against the Judgment dated 6th August, 2008 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, in Maintenance Case No. 7 of 2008, whereby in an ex-parte proceeding, the petitioner was directed to make the payment of maintenance to the opposite parties to the tune of Rs.1500/- to his deserted wife and Rs.1,000/- each to his two children, in total Rs.3,500/- per month from the date of passing of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order sheet in the said Maintenance Case No. 7 of 2008, brought on record as Annexure 1, which shows that an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., was filed on 11.1.2008. The said application was admitted on 16.1.2008 and notice was ordered to be issued. It appears from the perusal of the order sheet that notice under registered cover was issued to the petitioner on 4.3.2008 and the order dated 16.5.2008 shows that after expiry of one month from the issuance of the said notice, it has been ordered that O.P. (i.e., the petitioner) had full knowledge of the case and the case was fixed for ex-parte proceeding. It is not mentioned in the order as to how the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had full knowledge about the proceeding. Thereafter, the case was proceeded ex-parte, against the petitioner and finally culminated into the impugned Judgment dated 6.8.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, the same has been passed without proper notice to the petitioner and the notice, if any, was deliberately sent at the wrong address. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the private opposite parties has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, in as much as, the impugned Judgment would show that after the issuance of summon and registered notice, the case was fixed for ex-parte proceeding. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the order sheet of the case, I find that though in the order dated 16.5.2008, the Court below has mentioned that the petitioner herein, had full knowledge of the case and the case was fixed for ex-parte proceeding, I fail to understand as to how the Court below came to the said conclusion, particularly when nothing has been mentioned in the order. I am of the considered view that the order dated 16.5.2008, passed by the Court below in Maintenance Case No.7 of 2008 and all the further proceedings therein, are absolutely vitiated and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;