MIRZA KHUDARATULLA BAIG Vs. MAHENAZ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Adv. Mr. H.I. Pathan for the petitioner, Adv. Mr. S.A.G. Qureshi for respondent no.1, and the learned APP Mr. S.G. Nandedkar for respondent no.2 - State.

(2.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

(3.) The petitioner herein is original respondent in Misc. Criminal Application No. 142/2011 wherein the wife of the petitioner i.e. the present respondent had filed an application under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month. In the said proceedings, notice was served upon the respondent. He appeared in the court, through an Advocate, on 29-7-2011. The learned court had granted time and opportunity to the present petitioner to file his say. However, the petitioner failed to file his say and, therefore, the learned court was constrained to proceed with the application without waiting for the say of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate, in the circumstances, was constrained to place implicit reliance upon the oral and documentary evidence produced by the applicant therein and had considered her contentions. Upon appreciating the evidence led by the applicant i.e. present respondent no.1, the learned 6th Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Nanded, vide order dated 31st October 2012, allowed the application partly. The learned Magistrate directed the present petitioner to pay monthly maintenance to the respondent, at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- from the date of application. The petitioner was also directed to pay costs of Rs. 1000/- to the applicant therein.