IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.281 of 2009 1. Mira Mishra D/o Late Sri Niwas Shukla, resident at present village Shukulpura, P.O. Dariyapur, P.S. Arrah, Mufassil, District Bhojpur, Bihar 2. Ruchi Mishra D/o Ramesh Kumar Mishra, resident at present village Shukulpura, P.O. Dariyapur, P.S. Arrah, Mufassil, Dist. Bojpur ...Petitioners Versus Ramesh Kumar Mishra, S/o Bashishth Narayan Mishra, resident of village Indrath Khurd, P.S. Bikramganj, P.O. Kaster Mahadew, district Rohtas, at present : employee in Bharat Heavy Engineering Ltd. Department No.32752 Card No. 12348542 L.F.O. F.B.N. Residence House No. 203, Barkheda , Pathani, City Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh …Opposite party ----------- 06. 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Nobody appears on behalf of opposite party in spite of appearance in this proceeding by filing Vakalatnama. Petitioner no.1 claiming herself to be the wife of opposite party, lodged a proceeding in the court below seeking maintenance which gave rise to Maintenance Case No.105/1990(Tr. No.364/1994). The said proceeding was contested threadbare by the opposite party. It was contended on behalf of the opposite party that a decree of divorce has already been passed by a competent court at Bhopal(Exts. A and B) on the ground that the lady (petitioner no.1) was not sincere/faithful to the husband. On a consideration of entire materials, learned Magistrate by an order dated 22.02.1994, allowed the application directing the opposite party to pay Rs.500/- per month for the maintenance of petitioner no.1 and Rs. 500/- per month for 2 maintenance of his daughter(petitioner no.2). Since the maintenance amount was not being paid, petitioner no.1 instituted another proceeding seeking enforcement of the order wherein an order attaching the salary of opposite party was passed. Opposite party aggrieved by aforesaid order, preferred two revisional applications being Cr. Rev. Nos. 94/94 and 58/98. Let it be recorded that Cr. Rev. No.94/94 was directed against grant of maintenance in favour of estranged wife and daughter, whereas Cr. Rev. No.58/98 was directed against the order passed on the application preferred by petitioner no. 1 for enforcement of the order. Learned revisional court by order impugned allowed the revision application and set aside the order granting maintenance in favour of the petitioners. While doing so, learned revisional court called for records of Cr. Rev. No.58/98 and held that re-marriage of petitioner no.1 after being divorced is admitted. While assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the memo of revision, no such plea of re-marriage of petitioner no.1 with another person was taken. The revisional court erred in relying on photo copy of document(s) filed by opposite party in connected Rev.No.58/98 in order to come to the conclusion that re-marriage of petitioner no.1 after divorce is/was admitted. From the impugned order, it appears that in connected revision application Xerox copy of one receipt baring no. 321 dated 15.05.1997 of Sitala Mandir Vikash Samiti and few clippings of the newspaper(s) were attached. It is 3 the stand of the petitioners that in absence of any pleading, such document cannot be relied upon. If the revisional court was, prima facie, satisfied by the document placed by opposite party in connected revision application, the parties ought to have been allowed to lead evidence. The said course was not taken by the revisional court. It is also contended that even in the face of the findings recorded by learned revisional court, the quantum of maintenance made in favour of daughter should not have been interfered with. I have considered the submissions of the counsel and perused the order impugned. The memo of revision preferred by opposite party no.1 is on record at Annexure-2. It appears that no such plea of re-marriage of the petitioner no.1 has been taken and/or made therein. The finding of petitioner no.1 re-marrying with some other person has been recorded based on photo copy of certain receipt(s) field by o.p.no.1 in connected revision application. No opportunity was given to the petitioners to controvert the same by leading evidence. It further appears that no such plea of re- marriage of petitioner no.1 with another person after a decree of divorce has been taken in memo of revision. In that circumstance, the learned revisional court, in my view, erred in law in recording a finding that petitioner no.1 re-married after divorce and thereby interfered with the order dated 22.02.1994. For the all these reasons, this Court is persuaded to interfere with the matter. The application is allowed. Orders 4 dated 19.11.2008, passed by Addl. District and Sessions Judge Arrah, Bhojpur in Cr Rev. No.94/1994 is quashed and set aside. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )