- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the opposite parties in spite of repeated calls. On the previous date also, no one had appeared for the opposite parties in spite of repeated calls. Accordingly, the case was adjourned in order to give a chance to the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Today also, as no one appeared for the opposite parties, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 18.4.2007 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, in M.P. Case No.08 of 1994, whereby the maintenance granted to both the opposite parties have been enhanced from Rs.1200.00 per month to Rs.4,000.00 per month on the application filed on behalf of the opposite parties under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. It is apparent from the impugned order that the said order has been passed by the Court below ex-parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, while passing the order against the petitioner, the Court below has taken into consideration the salary slip of the petitioner, which was issued for the month of February, 2007. The petitioner thereafter, retired from service in the month of March, 2007 and accordingly, his income was reduced to a great extent and he is not in a position to make the payment of the enhanced maintenance to the opposite parties. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner did not receive any notice issued by the Court and accordingly, he could not appear in the Court below. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
(3.) I have also perused the Lower Court Record called for in this case. The record shows that the application for enhancement of the maintenance was filed by the opposite parties on 20.4.2005 in the Court below. Subsequently by order dated 23.7.2007, notice was issued to the petitioner, who was the opposite party in the Court below, by both the process, i.e. registered post as well as through the process of Court. The service report of the notice issued through the process of the Court was not received. The record shows that the registered notice issued to the petitioner by the Court below was received by one Ashok Karmkar and on the basis of the acceptance of the notice by Ashok Karmkar, the Court below by order dated 30.1.2006 took the notice upon the petitioner to be validly served and proceeded against the petitioner ex-parte. Thus from the record, it is apparent that the notice was never served upon the petitioner, rather it was served to one Ashok Karmkar and the same could not have been taken as valid service of notice upon the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Court below on 30.1.2006, fixing the case for ex-parte hearing, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and consequently all the orders passed subsequently, including the impugned order dated 18.4.2007, thus cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;