Court No. - 41
Reserved on 27.08.2018 Delivered on 05.09.2018 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11931 of 2005 Petitioner :- Parag Bhati Respondent :- Smt. Maya Bhati Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikraant Rana Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Ravi Agarwal
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Chandraveer Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vikraant Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 6.8.2005 passed by Family Judge, Meerut in Case No. 304 of 2002 (Smt. Maya Bhati Vs. Parag Bhati), whereby the application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent was allowed ex parte and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of application i.e. 28.5.2002.
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed a Case No. 304 of 2002 against the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which has been ex-parte decided on 6.8.2005 by Family Judge, Meerut and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent as monthly maintenance allowance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and only on the basis of evidence produced on behalf of respondent-Maya Bhati, the impugned order was passed.
5. From the perusal of record, it appears that on 22.11.2004 petitioner was absent hence an order for exparte hearing was passed and statement of respondent-Maya Bhati was recorded as PW-1; neither any opportunity for cross-examination was provided to the petitioner nor he was given any opportunity to raise his evidence before the Court and only on the basis of evidence produced by the respondent-Maya Bhati, the impugned order was passed.
6. The said direction about payment of the amount under ex- parte judgment without giving opportunity of objection and hearing to the petitioner does not appear to be proper and in accordance with law, hence it cannot be sustained.
7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed; the order dated 6.8.2005 passed by Family Judge, Meerut is set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity to file objection to the petitioner and hearing both the parties in accordance with law.
8. Copy of this judgment and order be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately for necessary compliance.
Order Date :-05.09.2018 NS