Petition challenging an ex-parte maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC, alleging illegal passing without proper notice. Court found no clear denial of service and dismissed the petition.
The petition challenging the maintenance order is dismissed.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1583 of 2019
======================================================
Guddu Tiwary @ Nandeshwar Tiwary Son of late Bachchu Tiwary, Resident of Village- Morhar, P.O. Raupchhada, P.S. Saheb Ganj, DistrictMuzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner
... ... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pradhan Murli Manohar Prasad Mr. Raju Kumar Goswami Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-11-2019
The present petition has been filed “ against the order dated 21.12.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No. 7 of 2015 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur”.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition filed by the respondent no. 1 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has illegally been allowed by directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month by way of maintenance. It is submitted that such ex-parte order has been passed without proper service of notice which vitiates the order.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1583 of 2019 dt.25-11-2019 2/2
service of notice, so, proceeding started ex-parte in his absence”. Apart from a vague statement made in paragraphs- 8 and 11 of the petition, there is no clear cut denial of service of notice upon the petitioner. Moreover, this Court is therefore not satisfied about any illegality having been committed by the learned Court below by passing the impugned order.
(Vikash Jain, J)
Ibrar//-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| Uploading Date | 26.11.2019 |
| Transmission Date | N.A. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the ex-parte maintenance order was illegal due to lack of proper notice service.
Whether the petitioner explicitly denied receipt of notice in the petition.
Guddu Tiwary @ Nandeshwar Tiwary
1. Babita Devi
2. Ghanshyam Pandey
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
