AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.06.2017 passed in Criminal Misc Case No. 06 of 2015 by learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the application preferred by the petitioner for recall of the ex parte order dated 22.11.2014 passed in
Cr. Misc Case No. 15 of 2010 enhancing the maintenance had been rejected.
It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that an ex parte order has been passed u/s 127 Cr.P.C., whereby the
petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as monthly maintenance in favour of opposite party No. 1 without properly appreciating the contention of the petitioner and that the amount of maintenance which has been enhanced is not justified and the same is six times the original
maintenance amount.
Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
It appears that earlier a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. had been filed by the opposite party No. 1 which has been registered as M.P. Case No. 19 of
2005, which was disposed of on the basis of conciliation and the petitioner was directed to make monthly payment of Rs. 500/- to the opposite party No. 2, as maintenance. The petitioner at that time was getting salary of Rs. 7,200/- per month. It further appears that thereafter a petition u/s
127 Cr.P.C. had been filed by the opposite party No. 2 for enhancement of the amount of maintenance, which had been registered as Cr. Misc.
Case No. 15 of 2010, which was allowed vide ex parte order dated of 22.11.2014 enhancing the amount of maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs.
3,000/- per month. The petitioner thereafter preferred a petition for recalling the ex parte order dated 22.11.2014 and by order dated
02.06.2017, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected.
It appears from a perusal of the impugned order dated 02.06.2017, which is an exhaustive order that sufficient steps has been taken by the
learned court below to serve the notice upon the petitioner, but since the petitioner had not appeared, the ex parte order has been passed.
The contention of the petitioner that he was unaware of the order dated of 22.11.2014 enhancing the amount of maintenance from Rs. 500/- to
Rs. 3,000/- per month cannot be accepted in absence of any evidence to prove the same and moreover the petitioner has not disclosed that as to how he came to know about the order dated 22.11.2014.
Since every possible steps had been taken by the learned court below to serve the notice upon the petitioner and which has been dealt in detail
in the impugned order and also the fact that the learned court below after considering all the aspects had come to a conclusion that no valid ground could be put forward by the petitioner to recall or to make alteration in the order dated 22.11.2014 passed in Cr. Misc Case No. 15 of 2010 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 02.06.2017. This application fails and the same is
hereby dismissed.