JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. None appears for the non-applicant though served. Ms. Shamsi Haider, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has, upon request made, graciously volunteered to assist the Court.

4. The challenge is to the judgment dtd. 13/2/2023 passed by the Family Court, Yavatmal in Petition No. E-234/2020.

5. The non-applicant - wife has filed petition under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") against the applicant - husband. The Family Court has allowed the petition and directed the applicant to pay an amount of Rs.8,000.00 per month to the non-applicant as maintenance from the date of the order.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court ought to have framed the point as regards the plea of divorce put forth by the applicant in his reply. The Family Court referred to the pleadings in this regard but without formulating the point.

7. It appears that the applicant had sent a pre-talaq settlement notice to the non-applicant on 8/11/2019. The nonapplicant and her relatives have not responded positively. Thereafter on 25/11/2019, the applicant has pronounced first talaq in the prese