IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.668 of 2008 MD. TASLIM Versus BABY TABASSUM & ORS ----------- 2 25.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the other side. In view of the fact that the husband/petitioner has been subjected to impugned exparte order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and three children without being allowed to place his case, there can be no disagreement on this issue that such an order ought to have been passed after giving an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/husband. This Court accordingly would not like to go into the intricacies as to whether the petitioner was watching the proceeding and was thus deliberately not appearing in the case or was unable to appear for the reasons beyond his control. In that view of the matter specially when the impugned order which was passed in absence of the petitioner does not discuss the vital issue of income for determining the amount of monthly compensation, the ends of justice will itself require that the Court below should reconsider the entire matter and pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to the petitioner to place his evidence. Let it be noted that the petitioner has no such objection that the opposite party is not his wife or that she is not entitled for amount of maintenance on any score 2 save and except that the means of the petitioner is not such on the basis of which he can pay a sum of Rs. 2300/- per month for the wife and three children. This Court would not express any opinion on such case of the petitioner but then both law and equity would demand that he should be given opportunity to place proof of his income. Counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that he will be the last person to at least ask that the wife of the petitioner and three children should go without payment in this period when the matter is to be re- adjudicated. He however submits that at least the arrear of payment should be withheld till the determination by the Court below as the petitioner is prepared to pay the current amount from the month of July onwards. In view of the aforementioned fair stand on the part of the petitioner, this Court after setting aside both the orders dated 7th August, 2007 and 20th February, 2008 would remit the matter back to the Court below to re- determine the issue of grant of maintenance to the wife and three minor children of the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that whatever amount is fixed by the Court below, will be payable from the date of filing of such application of the opposite parties under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and once such order is passed, the arrears thereof would be paid by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of such order. 3 It is further observed that in case the amount fixed by the Court below is less than Rs. 2300/- per month, any amount that will be paid by the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings will be always subject to accounting and adjustment. Considering him fact that the opposite party wife will be required to contest the proceeding afresh at the instances of the husband d petitioner, this court while allowing this civil revision application would direct the petitioner to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to his wife within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)