Dismissed

Mukhram Singh v. Budhnath Singh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Nov 2022CRR/946/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an ex-parte maintenance order of Rs. 8,000/- awarded to a blind petitioner's father. The Court held the petitioner's repeated absence and failure to file replies justified the lower court's reliance on revisional discretion to upholding the order.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, maintaining the ex-parte maintenance order of Rs. 8,000/- in favour of the respondent.

Mukhram Singh Vs Budhnath Singh — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 946 of 2022

¶5

Mukhram Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o Budhnath Singh, R/o Talab Ke Baaju Mein (Beside Pond), Village Nainkatera, Teacher Class-II, Government Primary School, Village Kuteri, Gunderdehi, District Balod (CG)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Budhnath Singh, S/o late Sukhdev, aged about 73 years, R/o New Khursipara, Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (CG)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner : Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

07/11/2022 :

¶14

The petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.8.2022 passed in MJC No.426/2022 whereby the application preferred under Section 126(2) of the CrPC to set aside the ex-parte order granting maintenance in favour of the respondent-father in Misc. Criminal Case No.1435/2019 on 20.1.2022 to the tune of Rs.8,000/- was dismissed.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-father had preferred an application under Section 125 CrPC on 3.12.2019 wherein the petitioner did not appear on 15.11.2021, therefore, ex-parte proceeding was initiated and after completion of the proceeding, order

¶16

¶17

dated 20.1.2022 was passed by the 2^nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-father, though is old and aged person, but he is earning from various sources and is having sufficient means of earning. The petitioner is blind by birth as well as he has a liability to maintain his handicapped wife and children. He has been targeted at the instance of other family members because he is a Government Servant. As the petitioner was unable to attend the Court proceeding regularly, he engaged an amicus curiae. So his absence in the proceeding is bonafide. Therefore, application has been preferred under Section 126 (2) of the CrPC immediately after passing of the order of maintenance within 3 months. So the cause shown by the petitioner is required to be considered sympathetically. Hence learned counsel prays to set aside the said order and the case be remanded back for giving opportunity of hearing, in the interest of justice.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-father strongly opposes the Revision and submits that though sufficient opportunity has been afforded, but the petitioner has not complied with the order and he deliberately remained absent, and after passing of the order of maintenance, filed the said application. Therefore, the impugned order is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference.

¶20

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶22

In the impugned order dated 10^th August, 2022, learned Judge of the family Court, as mentioned all the details that the petitioner has not filed any reply, though the petition has been filed in the year 2019, but whole year in 2020, either he remained absent or kept on seeking time for filing reply. On 15.11.2021, the petitioner again remained absent, therefore, the Court had left with no option but to proceed ex-parte, as the proceeding of maintenance is summary in nature and the petitioner is a Teacher (Class-II) in Government School, therefore, an amount of Rs.8,000/- was awarded towards maintenance of his father, and the said order is held to be just and proper. The petitioner has failed to show any good cause for his non-appearance. Therefore, this Court does not find the present to be a strong case for interference invoking revisional jurisdiction.

¶23

Accordingly, the Revision is dismissed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶26

Judge

¶27

Barve

Mukhram Singh v. Budhnath Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhram Singh v. Budhnath Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shubham Damor Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Habib Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K. J. S. L. Coal and Power Ltd. Vs Abhijeet M. a. D. C. Nagpur Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Birendra Kumar Verma Vs Smt. Neetu Verma

Smt. Anusuiya Bai Vs Prem Prakash Bhuarya