High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an impugned order rejecting an application to set aside ex parte maintenance proceedings initiated after the petitioner refused to accept summons.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1550/2014
Devishankar Son of Bhuwana Giri R/o Gram Hindoli At Present Bheru Ji Ka Barda, Near House of Shambhupuri, Hindoli District Bundi Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudarshan Laddha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini for Mr. Teeka Ram Meena
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
20/04/2024
[CRLR-1550/2014]
(2 of 4)
was not aware about filing of the aforesaid application against him. Counsel submits that a fake report was obtained by the respondents about effecting service of notice upon the petitioner on the pretext that he refused to accept the said notice. Counsel submits that on the basis of the aforesaid fake report, service upon the petitioner was treated as complete and ex parte proceedings were initiated against him on 07.02.2008 and finally vide ex parte order dated 25.11.2008 the petitioner was directed to pay a maintenance of Rs. 900/- per month to the respondent No. 1-wife and Rs. 700/- per month to each of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3-children. Counsel submits that respondents put a lock on the house of the petitioner and left the matrimonial home and thereafter, the petitioner is not residing at the address mentioned in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondents. Counsel submits that the petitioner is residing in a temple and he was not aware about the aforesaid application being moved by the respondents. Hence under these circumstances, the order initiating ex parte proceedings dated 07.02.2008 and the subsequent order granting maintenance to the respondents dated 25.11.2008 are liable to be quashed and set aside.
[CRLR-1550/2014]
(3 of 4)
notice of the pending proceedings, the petitioner failed to appear before the Court below and accordingly, ex parte order dated 25.11.2008 was passed against the petitioner for making maintenance of Rs. 900/- to the respondent No. 1-wife and Rs. 700/- per month to each of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3-children. Counsel submits that all these facts were thoroughly examined by the Court below, while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.
[CRLR-1550/2014]
(4 of 4)
him to pay maintenance of Rs. 900/- per month to the respondent No. 1-wife and Rs. 700/- per month to each of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3-children. Thereafter, when the amount of maintenance was not paid by the petitioner to the respondents, an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. was submitted by the respondents for getting maintenance as well as arrears of maintenance and the aforesaid application remained pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate for a considerable time and finally the warrant of recovery was issued against the petitioner.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ashu91
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the revision petition seeking quashing of ex parte maintenance orders when the petitioner allegedly refused to accept notice.
Whether the lower court committed any error in rejecting the application to set aside ex parte proceedings under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Devishankar Son of Bhuwana Giri
Pinky Bai
Rohit Kumar
Krishan
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
