IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2020 of 2007 DHARMENDRA SHARMA Versus DURGESH NANDINI SHAHI ----------- 3 4/9/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court when in the first round of litigation the petitioner did not choose to appear and contest, in the application filed by the wife, opposite party which led to an order dated 27.10.2006, this Court would not find any ground to interfere with the order seeking review of the same order as there is hardly any ground that the earlier order was vitiated on account of any apparent error on the face of records. In fact, it would appear to this Court that a tactics was adopted by the husband to deprive his wife, opposite party from getting the amount of maintenance, because matrimonial case was filed in the year 2005 and when an application dated 13.09.2005 came to be filed by the wife opposite party seeking maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in that matrimonial case, the petitioner despite service of notice to him and direction to him, did not choose to file his written statement as against claim of the wife seeking ad-interim maintenance and when an exparte order was passed on 27.10.2006, the petitioner first moved this Court in civil revision application C.R. No. 55 of 2007 and having withdrawn that civil revision application on 08.02.2008 filed a review application on 2 23.03.2007 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.06.2007 and in this way even after lapse of three years from the date of filing her application the opposite party wife has not received a single paise on the head of the maintenance. This being the position, this Court having already noticed above that there was no ground for the court below to review of such order only on the ground that the petitioner did not appear when the original order has been passed on 27.10.2006 after giving opportunity to the petitioner for more than one year from the date of filing such application by the wife claiming maintenance i.e. 13.09.2005. As a matter of fact the petitioner had never denied the facts assorted by the wife opposite party in her aforesaid application and thus there was go occasion for the court below to review its order. As a matter of fact such vascilliating and inhuman attitude of the petitioner has continued even before this court because the petitioner has shown total inability to deposit even part of amount by way of one times settlement on which opposite party could have sustained herself and could have appeared before this Court for finding out some solution as was assured to this Court in the earlier order recorded on 1.9. 2008 in this proceedings. Thus, both conduct of the petitioner and also facts of his case do not require any 3 interference of this Court under Section-115 of the Code of Civil Procedure specially when there is no jurisdiction error in the impugned order. Accordingly there being no merit in this civil revision application, the same is dismissed and the Court below is directed to ensure that the amount of maintenance so granted by it, both arrear and current is realized from the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar