Judgment
revn60.16 25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO.60 of 2016
Mr. Prakash s/o Sukhlal Wankhede
Aged about - 33 years, Occupation - Nil
R/o Madhuban, B Wing 001, Lodha
Heaven, Nilje Gaon, Dombivali East,
Thane - 421 201. ..... Applicant.
:: VERSUS ::
1. Mrs. Priyanka w/o Prakash
Wankhede, Aged about - 26 years,
Occupation Private Job.
2. Master Safalya s/o Prakash Wankhede
through applicant No.1
Aged about - 05 ½ years, Occupation -
Education, Both R/o C/o Plot No.370,
Kapil Nagar, Nari Road, Post -
Uppalwadi, P.S. Jaripatka Nagpur-26. ..... Non-applicants.
================================================================
Shri P.H. Khobragade, Counsel for the applicant.
None appears for the non-applicants.
================================================================
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JUNE 27, 2017.
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:48 :::
Judgment
revn60.16 25
2
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally by consent of learned counsel Shri P.H. Khobragade for the applicant/husband. None appears for the non- applicants.
2. The non-applicants filed the proceedings before learned Judge of the Family Court at Nagpur. The proceedings were in the nature of an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those proceedings were registered as Petition No.E-168 of 2014. Learned Judge of the Family Court on 30.12.2015 partly allowed the said petition and thereby directed that the present applicant/husband shall pay Rs.5,000/- per month by way of maintenance to non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to non-applicant No.2/Master Safalya, his son.
3. According to learned counsel Shri P.H.
.....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:48 ::: Judgment revn60.16 25 3 Khobragade for the applicant/husband, the case before learned Judge of the Family Court was decided behind the back of the present applicant/husband and it was not decided on merits. Therefore, the applicant/husband should get a chance to submit his case before learned Judge of the Family Court.
4. Submission made on behalf of learned counsel Shri P.H. Khobragade for the applicant/husband, after perusing the judgment, is not correct in toto. The notice of the petition was duly served upon the present applicant/husband. In pursuance to the said notice, the applicant/husband appeared before learned Judge of the Family Court and filed his written statement Exhibit 40 and contested the proceedings. However, it appears from the judgment that after the evidence of non-applicant No.1/wife was recorded, the present applicant/husband remained .....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:48 ::: Judgment revn60.16 25 4 absent and his Advocate filed a No-Instruction-Pursis and, therefore, the matter was decided ex parte from the said stage.
5. On 12.4.2016, this Court directed the present applicant/husband to deposit Rs.25,000/-. The said amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited by the present applicant/husband on 2.5.2016. On 5.4.2017, this Court recorded a statement of learned counsel for the applicant/husband that the applicant/husband is making regular payment of Rs.5,000/- to non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs.3,000/- to non-applicant No.2/son.
Record shows that though the non-applicants were served and counsel was also appointed, nobody appeared before this Court. Therefore, on 13.6.2017 an order was passed granting time till today and by the said order it was made clear that if the non-applicants and their counsel .....5/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:48 ::: Judgment revn60.16 25 5 remain absent, the matter will be heard finally even in their absence.
6. In view of the conduct on the part of the applicant/husband of depositing amount of Rs.25,000/- as directed by this Court and also paying maintenance amount as directed by learned Judge of the Court regularly, I am of the view that opportunity should be given to the applicant/husband to defend his case on merits before learned Judge of the Family Court. No prejudice will be caused to the non-applicants since the applicant/husband is continuously paying the maintenance amount.
7. In that view of the matter, the present criminal revision application is allowed. Judgment and order passed by learned Judge of the Family Court, Nagpur dated 30.12.2015 in Petition No.E-168 of 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Family Court .....6/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:48 ::: Judgment revn60.16 25 6 at Nagpur to decide the matter afresh on its own merits. However, it is made clear that till the matter is decided by learned Judge of the Family Court afresh, the applicant/husband shall be under an obligation to make payment of Rs.5,000/- to non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs.3,000/- to non-applicant No.2/son.
Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE !! BRW !! ...../-
::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:48 :::