Cr. Revision petitioner failed to appear on two consecutive dates. Court noted non-compliance with earlier order directing 50% payment of arrears and dismissed the application as not pressed due to lack of participation.
Application dismissed as not pressed due to non-appearance and non-compliance with earlier direction to pay arrears.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 870 of 2014
Ganesh Mahto Son of Late Ledo Mahto resident of village Govindpur Basti, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand)
..... Petitioner
Versus
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : None For the State : ---
Order No. 09: Dated 12th April, 2019
No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.
The order dated 01.03.2019 reads as follows:-
“Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite parties though the notice was validly served.
On enquiry from the Court that whether any amount has been paid to the wife or not, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to pay some amount of maintenance during the pendency of the case. He has also prayed time for hearing of this matter after two weeks.
In this view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to pay 50% of the arrear amount which was directed by the trial court within three weeks from today.”
The case was again listed on 29.03.2019 but on that day also
nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
The order dated 29.3.2019 reads as follows:-
“Nobody appears on behalf of the parties even on repeated calls. Vide order dated 01.03.2019 the petitioner was directed to pay 50% of the arrear amount which was directed by the trial court, within three weeks from the date of the order i.e., on 01.03.2019.
Today nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner
2
has lost interest in the matter. However, by way of last.”
Even today, nobody is present to assist the Court. It appears that the petitioner has lost interest in the matter. It also appears that the order dated 01.03.2019 is not complied.
In view of the aforesaid facts, this application is dismissed as not pressed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Raja /
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for modification of maintenance order should be dismissed in the absence of the petitioner despite prior direction to pay arrears.
Whether non-compliance with an earlier order directing payment of maintenance arrears justifies dismissal of the present application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ganesh Mahto
State of Jharkhand
Radhwa Devi
Deepak Roshan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
