IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.117 of 2005 Sukhpal S/o Jagram ………. Revisionist Versus Presiding Judge, Famil Court & another ..…. Opp. Parties Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent no.2 Dated: September 19, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The order dated 7.3.2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Misc. Case No.22/2005, Sukhpal Vs. Balesh, is under challenge by way of this revision. Having heard the learned counsel of the parties qua the controversy, it appears that Smt. Balesh, claiming herself to be a legally wedded wife of revisionist Sukhpal, filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on dated 10.12.2003. In that petition, she averred that they were espoused seven years’ ago as per hindu rituals. No progeny could be conceived out of the wedlock and she was ultimately expelled out from her matrimonial house by her husband Sukhpal. She claimed the maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,500/- per month alleging that the revisionist along with his brothers is the owner of 50 Bighas of agricultural land, nay the business of milk. In that petition, revisionist filed his written statement accepting only the advancement of talks regarding their engagement but denied any formal wedding with Smt. Balesh. After filing this written statement, he absented himself from the petition and that was ordered to be proceeded ex parte against him. 2 Revisionist got that ex parte order set-aside once on dated 3.6.2004 and he was extended opportunity by the court below to contest the matter, but he again absented himself. Respondent Smt. Balesh feeling the delay in the matter, moved an application for interim maintenance which was accepted by the court below on dated 31.7.2004 awarding the interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month. It appears that when the recovery of the interim maintenance was made against the revisionist before making the demand, he filed a revision in the High Court and that was dismissed on merits. Revisionist, instead of giving appearance before the family court, absented himself from the proceedings and permitted the Judge, Family Court to adjudicate the matter ex parte on dated 27.12.2004 awarding maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of application. Revisionist filed an application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. on dated 27.1.2005 (within limitation) to recall the ex parte judgment and order dated 27.12.2004 and this application of revisionist was rejected by the Judge, Family Court by passing the impugned order. On filing this revision, the operation of the impugned order was stayed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to Smt. Balesh, which he has paid. Having heard the learned counsel of both the parties, this Court feels that the attitude of the revisionist Sukhpal is full of high handedness. He absented himself deliberately and voluntarily from the proceedings in the lower court time and again, leaving the Judge, Family Court with no option but to decide the case ex parte. He repeatedly moved one application 3 or the other for setting the ex parte order stayed on the grounds made on one reason or the other, but not intended to honour the orders of the Court to pay the maintenance amount to the respondent Smt. Balesh. Respondent Smt. Balesh has proved in the lower court to be the wife of revisionist on the basis of voter list as well as the family register where she has been recorded as the wife of revisionist. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that he could not get an opportunity either to prove the absence on any merit or about his monthly income, even though the lower court, presuming all the averments true against the revisionist, has awarded the maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month, as claimed by Smt. Balesh. On this score also, this Court is of the view that maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month even in the period when the petition was filed till its decision, was not much for the self-maintenance for a woman to live in a dignified manner. Revisionist’s income may not be as much as has been stated in the averments of Smt. Balesh but the facts are not denied that he is a healthy and able bodied man and it is the settled position of law that a healthy and able bodied man is bound to maintain his wife irrespective of any material means of earning. Learned Judge, Family Court in his impugned order has stated that till 17.3.2005, the quantum of Rs.38,000/- has been due upon the revisionist, which he has not paid and since that date till now, the amount would be more than rupees one lakh but he has only paid Rs.10,000/- as per the directions of this Court at the time of admission of this revision. 4 The economic condition of this lady Smt. Balesh can well be imagined that how she would be able to survive in the society, besides indulging in litigation to recover the amount of maintenance. In the above circumstances, this Court feels that the revision is totally devoid of merits. However, in the interest of justice, this Court feels that he can still be extended an opportunity to contest the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. provided he makes the 75% of the up-to-date maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month as awarded by the trial court within a period of two months from today. If the revisionist makes the compliance as above, in that case the revisionist revision will stand allowed and the impugned order will be deemed to have been set aside. Otherwise in case of failure, this revision shall be deemed to have been dismissed and Smt. Balesh will be at liberty to recover the entire amount of maintenance as awarded by the Judge, Family Court. Revision is disposed of accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 19.09.2011 Rajeev Dang