Sobat Ali vs State of Rajasthan and Another

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2010, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur, whereby the learned Judge has enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 1,200/- per month to Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of the Respondent-wife, Smt. Kajodi.

Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has vehemently contended that the impugned order has been passed behind the back of the Petitioner as neither the Petitioner, nor his counsel was present when the impugned order was passed. Therefore, an opportunity of hearing should be given to him. Secondly, no cogent reason has been assigned by the learned Judge for enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,200/- per month to Rs. 2,000/- per month.

Heard the learned Counsel and perused the impugned order.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not justified in claiming that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the Petitioner. After all, the notices were issued to him. However, he chose not to appear before the Court either through a pleader, or himself. Therefore, the learned Judge cannot be faulted for proceeding ex-parte against him.

The learned Judge has noted the fact that upon his retirement, the Petitioner would receive almost Rs. 10 lacs as part of gratuity from the Railways. The learned Judge has also noted the fact that the Petitioner''s wife has been thrown out from her matrimonial home and according to the Protection Officer, she stays mostly in her parents'' house. Considering the fact that on his retirement, the Petitioner would receive about Rs. 10 lacs as part of gratuity from the Railways, the enhancement cannot be faulted.

Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.