Sardar Manmohansingh Avtarsingh Gujrat v. Kamaljit Kaur Sardar Manmohansingh Avtarsingh Gujral

1 REVN 519-07.doc-207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION NO.519 OF 2007 Sardar Manmohan Singh ] S/o. Avatar Singh Gujral.

... Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur, ] W/o. Sardar Manmohan Singh Gujral.

] ... Respondents None present.

CORAM :- M. S. SONAK, J.

DATE :- JANUARY 15, 2016 P. C. :- 1.

Neither the parties nor their Advocates are present. However, considering that this revision application is of the year 2007, the same is disposed of on merits.

2.

The challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 25/02/1994 by which the Family Court has dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 126 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') for setting aside the order dated 16/03/1993, by which the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to the respondent.

2 REVN 519-07.doc-207 3.

It was the case of the petitioner that the order dated 16/03/1993 was an 'ex-parte order' and therefore, application under Section 126 (2) of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the same was maintainable. It was the case of the petitioner that there was sufficient cause shown by him for setting aside the maintenance order dated 16/03/1993.

4.

If the record is perused, then it is clear that the order dated 16/03/1993, by which the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to the respondent, was not an ex-parte order, as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner was, admittedly, served with the process in the proceedings wherein the order dated 16/03/1993 came to be made. The petitioner had even filed his written statement opposing the award of maintenance. The examination-in-chief of the petitioner was recorded. The crossexamination was also partly concluded. In view of this, it cannot be said that the order dated 16/03/1993 was an ex-parte order and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to maintain the application under Section 126 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

5.

Further, even assuming that the maintenance order dated 16/03/1993 was an ex-parte order, the Family Court has rightly held that there was no sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for setting aside the said order. In fact, the record indicates that the petitioner was grossly negligent in the matter. The petitioner, neither remained present in the Court nor did he make inquiries with his Advocate a sot

3 REVN 519-07.doc-207 the progress of the matter. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded that the application upon which the impugned order has been made, was the third application in succession made by the petitioner for setting aside the maintenance order dated 16/03/1993. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that this is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and not a legitimate mean for avoiding payment of maintenance.

6.

There is no jurisdictional error in the making of the impugned order. There is no merit in this revision application. Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (M. S. SONAK, J.)