AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble MR.Justice N.Ananda
Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent.The petitioner (husband) has not appeared before the trial Court. It is his contention that there is no proper service of notice. However, such contention is not substantiated by production of documentary evidence, Even before the revisional Court, petitioner (husband) had abandoned the proceedings.
The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is aged about 73 years. He was not aware of proceedings and an opportunity may be given to petitioner to contest the proceedings.
The learned Counsel for respondent (wife) would submit that petitioner has neither paid maintenance nor contested the proceedings. If the proceedings are indefinitely protracted, the very purpose of filing the petition for maintenance will be frustrated Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the hardship that may be caused to respondent, 1 deem it proper to pass following order:
The petition is accepted. The order dated 28.9.2011 made in Criminal Revision Petition No.85/ 2010 and the order made in Criminal MiBc.Sfo.52/2009 dated 6.3.2010 ore set aside, The matter is remanded to trial Court.
The petitioner (husband) is permitted to contest the proceedings before the trial Court, subject to the condition that he shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1.50,000/-within a period of three months from today with the trial Court.
It is made clear that the deposit of amount as aforestated is a condition precedent for respondent to contest the proceedings before the trial Court
If the amount is deposited, respondent (wife) shall be permitted to withdraw 50% of amount