IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.942 of 2008 ABDUL QUAYUM Versus KHADIJA KHATOON ----------- 4 23/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. This Court would not find any error in the impugned order, in as much as, it is absolutely clear that the maintenance case was of the year 2003 and the same was adjudicated in the first round by order dated 19.1.2006 awarding maintenance of Rs. 1000/- to the wife-opposite party. At that time the petitioner came to this Court and took a plea that he was not given an adequate opportunity to place his case. This Court by order dated 31.7.2007 in Cr. Misc. No. 55233 of 2006 had accepted such plea of the petitioner and had set aside the order dated 19.10.2006 while remitting the matter to the Principal Judge to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in the matter and to produce materials in support of his case. After the said order dated 31.7.2007 was passed which was received in the court below on 12.9.2007 the petitioner did not choose to appear on 5.11.2007 and again on 20.11.2007 which were the date fixed and when he appeared on 1.12.2007 he had filed an application for time on 13.12.2007 and yet again on 7.1.2008. As a matter of fact the show cause in a proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated in the year 2003 the petitioner had filed his show cause only on 16.01.2008. Accordingly, the Court having no option 2 infact there being no cooperation on the part of the petitioner had passed an order of exparte hearing on 7.1.2008 after noticing that the opposite party for last five date was not taking any steps for contesting the matter. When this order was passed an application was filed on 29.1.2008 for recalling the exparte order. Even in the matter of exparte hearing the petitioner with an intention to delay the matter had asked for adjournment on 22.2.2008 which was also again repeated by him by filing an application on 11.3.2008. The court below thereafter considering the plea had passed order on 26.3.2008 and had recalled the order of exparte hearing on payment of Cost of Rs. 500/- with specific direction that the evidence should be adduced by the petitioner and for this purpose date was fixed as 9.4.2008. On 9.4.2008 witness was not produced by the petitioner and accordingly the court had given another indulgence fixing the date 23.4.2008. On 23.4.2008 a witness was examined and another dated 3.5.2008 was fixed for bringing the next witness of the petitioner. The petitioner did not choose to produce his next witness and instead he got an application filed stating therein that all the witnesses which has been examined by his wife should be recalled and he should be given a chance to cross examine them. When said petition was to be heard the petitioner again did not choose to contest the matter as will be evident from the 3 order dated 21.5.2008 wherein now he had sought time to press his first application for recalling of the witness which was being objected by the wife. Such attitude of the petitioner continued till 26.5.2008 when an application was again filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking adjournment and the same attitude was also continued by the petitioner on 2.6.2008 once again when a prayer for adjournment was made. It was in the background of these facts that the court below by order dated 5.6.2008 had passed the impugned order rejecting the application to recall P.W.1 for her cross examination and the case was fixed for argument. Counsel for the petitioner had vehemently submitted that the approach of the court below was absolutely perverse, in as much as, the court below had made several error of records in recording the impugned order. Initially, he took a plea that the petitioner was never absent and in fact it was only one date, i.e, 1.12.2007 that he was absent. This is apparently an incorrect statement in view of the certified copy of the order sheet which has been placed before this Court . Counsel for the petitioner in fact takes a further plea that the petitioner had never filed any written statement to the application filed by the opposite party-wife seeking maintenance, which again is found to be incorrect by this Court as is clear from the order sheet of the court below. 4 It is true that every husband contesting in the matrimonial case must be given reasonable opportunity to defend himself but what would be such reasonable opportunity would depend on the facts of this case. It thus appears that for the last five years the wife-opposite party is knocking the door of the court for being paid amount of maintenance and husband-petitioner has been constantly alleging that he had not been given a reasonable opportunity. On the facts noted above, this Court would therefore hold that despite petitioner being given sufficient opportunity, the petitioner did not avail the same and had indulged into such practice which would delay the final disposal of the maintenance case only with a view to deprive the wife-opposite party from getting amount of maintenance. In that view of the matter, this Court would dismiss this application with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the husband petitioner to the opposite party wife for the harassment caused to her within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. In the event the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is not paid by the petitioner towards compensation for the harassment caused to the opposite party-wife for the last five years, the same would be realized by the court below along with the amount of maintenance as to be fixed by it. The court below 5 is further directed to dispose of the maintenance case itself after concluding the arguments of both the parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar