Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Maintenance – Award of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance from date of filing of application – Today about 118 months have lapsed and as such, there is total Rs.5,90,000/- dues are against petitioner payable to O.P. No. 2 – Payments to be made in three instalments – Principal Judge, Family Court, directed to take steps according to provisions laid down under Cr.P.C. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)

Dr. Anshuman, J. – Learned senior counsel Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh alongwith Mr. Saket Kumar Singh, counsels for petitioner and learned counsel for the State Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, in-charge A.P.P. present.

2. The present Cr. Revision application has been filed against the order dated 03.08.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Misc. Case No. 66 of 2013 by which the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to O.P. No. 2 from the date of filing of the application of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

3. Counsel for petitioner submits that O.P. No. 2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner. The marriage was solemnized in the year 2006. Counsel submits that O.P. No. 2 has filed a Misc. Case No. 96 of 2012 for maintenance and the same was dismissed. Counsel also submits that O.P. No. 2 did not appear before the Court in spite of sufficient time provided to her. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner is a law abiding person and he is paying Rs.750/- per month to O.P. No. 2 as maintenance in compliance of the order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 50085 of 2013 at the time of bail. Counsel further submits that since the maintenance case was earlier dismissed filed by O.P. No. 2, then the second maintenance case being Misc. Case No. 66 of 2013 whose final order dated 03.08.2016 has been challenged before the present Cr. Revision has not maintainable and barred by res-judicata.

4. Counsel for the State submits that from the order under challenge, it transpires that the previous maintenance Misc. Case No. 96 of 2012 was dismissed by the Court due to non-appearance and no order has been passed on merit and, therefore, it shall not operate as res-judicata.

5. Counsel further submits that order impugned is not an ex-parte order. He further submits that sufficient notices were issued to the petitioner and due to his non-appearance, Misc. Case No. 66 of 2013 was fixed ex-parte on 22.01.2015 and the case was fixed for orders after arguments but the counsel for O.P. (present petitioner) appeared and on his request, the matter was recalled. An opportunity was granted to O.P. (present petitioner) to file show cause. A petition of O.P. (present petitioner) was allowed on 13.04.2016 with a condition to the O.P. (present petitioner) that he shall pay Rs.1,500/- as cost to the applicant but O.P. (present petitioner) was failed to comply this order and as such the case was again fixed for arguments.

6. Counsel for the State further submits that during arguments, the counsel for O.P. (present petitioner) has filed his attendance but did not turn up in this case and only thereafter, the record was put up for orders on merit.

7. In this view of the matter, there is no need of any interference in the order impugned.

8. Upon specific query from the Court that present revision application has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 in which it has been clearly mentioned that High Court may interfere in the order on the points of correctness, legality and propriety of the order. Answering these questions, learned senior counsel fairly submits that such points are not present in the present case.

9. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready to keep O.P. No. 2 as wife.

10. From the record, it transpires that the direction of payment of Rs.5,000/- per month was made from the date of filing of the application. The date of filing of application was 14.05.2013 and today about 118 months have lapsed and as such, there is in total Rs.5