Lalmati Devi alias Meera Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

B.K. Rathi, J.—This is a revision u/s 397/401, Cr. P.C. against the order dated 6.11.1997, passed by the Judge Family Court, Azamgarh, in application No. 1 of 1994.

I have heard Sri N. D. Rai, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sahab Tiwari, learned Counsel for opp. party No. 2.

The revisionist filed an application against opposite party No. 2, her husband for maintenance u/s 125, Cr. P.C. In that case by an ex-parte judgment, on 6.11.1997, maintenance of Rs. 500 per month was allowed. An application for restoration was moved and at the date of hearing the father of opposite party No. 2 was present. The learned Judge Family Court, Azamgarh orally interrogated them and reduced the amount to Rs. 300 instead of Rs. 500 per month by the impugned order dated 6.11.1997. Aggrieved by that order, the present revision has been preferred.

After considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order of the Judge Family Court is totally against the provisions of law. He has not followed the procedure and passed totally an arbitrary order.

The matter was decided by an ex-parte order. An application was moved for recalling the order. In case the learned Judge, Family Court was of the opinion that there was sufficient ground for recalling the order, he could have recalled the order. In that case the opportunity should have been given to the parties to produce the evidence and thereafter, the matter should have been decided according to law. However, he has not followed the correct procedure. He did not provide any opportunity to the parties to produce evidence and passed totally illegal and arbitrary order.

In the circumstances, I have no option, but to allow the revision.

The revision is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Judge, Family Court for re-decision in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment and in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the parties to produce evidence. The matter is very old. Notwithstanding anything as observed above, the learned Judge, Family Court may award the interim maintenance to the applicant, as he deems fit and proper.