- (1.) The Revision application has been preferred against the order dated 17.01.2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in M.P. Case No. 93 of 2008, whereby the application of O.P. No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed with a direction to the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 5000/- per month to O.P. No. 2.
(2.) Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order inter-alia on the grounds, firstly, that the trial court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 125(1)(d) which stipulates that maintenance can be awarded to the father or mother in case they are unable to maintain themselves. It is argued that the O.P. No. 2 is a retired employee of the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (B.C.C.L) and he is getting pension but this aspect has not been considered by the court below; secondly, the trial court has fixed that the quantum of maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- without appreciating the fact that the petitioner is saddled with the liability to maintain his family and he has to pay for the schooling and education for four minor children as also expenses to meet the daily needs of the family; that he has taken loan and has to pay the monthly installments towards the loan; that money is also required for the marriage for his daughters as and when they attain marriageable age. It is urged that the O.P. No. 2 is residing with his younger son whose wife is employed as a Nurse in a Government Hospital and the younger son is also employed there and both of them are earning handsome salary; that the O.P. No. 2 had received the entire sum of gratuity, provident fund, which is lying with him. Thirdly, it has been contended that the court below has passed the order granting maintenance from the date of application whereas Clause 2 of Section 125 Cr.P.C. contemplates grant of maintenance from the date of order and if the maintenance is granted from the date of application then cogent reasons have to be assigned for the same but no reason has been assigned by the court for-ordering payment of maintenance from the date of filing of the application.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 had compromised the case which would be evident from the Annexure-1, whereby, O.P. No. 2 had agreed to withdraw the maintenance petition No. 93 of 2008 on the terms of compromise as enumerated in the compromise petition dated 23.03.2010; that though O.P. No. 2 has denied the compromise but the order-sheets dated 23.04.2010 to 19.01.2011 (filed as Annexure-B of the counter affidavit), discloses the fact that both the parties were not present in the court subsequent to the compromise petition. The abstinence of the O.P. No. 2 shows the conduct of O.P and is indicative of the fact that O.P was a signatory and consenting party to the said compromise entered into between the parties out side the court, due to the said agreement the petitioner did not take necessary steps to adduce evidence to rebut the claim of the petitioner neither did he file the show cause. On the said grounds, it has been urged that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte and is fit to be set aside. It is argued that the matter be remitted to the court below to decide it afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence.;