IMPORTANT POINT
The Court affirmed the necessity of providing maintenance to dependents while ensuring fair legal processes are followed in maintenance proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. P. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973 for setting aside and quashing of the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, West Karbi Anglong at Hamren in M. R. Case No. 01/2022, whereby, the second party/petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 8,000/-(Eight thousand) as monthly allowances towards monthly maintenance.

3. In brief the case of the petitioner is that 1st party/respondent was in a relationship with the second party/petitioner from July 2016 till September 2020 and out of their relationship a child was born. The child is studying in nursery at Don Bosco Higher Secondary School, Umswai. It has been alleged that the 1st party/respondent was subjected to cruelty, physical and mental harassment by the petitioner and she had to undergo medical treatment for the same. Thereafter, she fled to Umswai and is presently living with her elder sister. As she has no source of income of her own, she is unable to bear her own expanses as well as of her minor daughter and accordingly, she filed this petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. It is further claimed by the 1st party/respondent that the petitioner/second party has sufficient land and property wherein he cultivates broom, bamboo etc., and also possesses a public transport vehicle, wherefrom he earns sufficient income. And as such, the first party/respondent prayed for monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) from the present petitioner/second party.

4. The case proceeded ex-parte against the present petitioner/second party as held by the learned Court below that he never appeared before the Court even after receiving notice and did not file his written statement. But the petitioner never received any notice from the learned Court below as the notice was issued to the address of West Karbi Anglong at Hamren though he is resident of Umbormon. In the said case, the first party/respondent adduced 3(three) witnesses including herself and after hearing the ex-parte argument from the first party/respondent, the learned Court below accordingly passed the judgment and order directing the present petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand) per month from the date of institution of M.R Case No. 01/2022.

5. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, West Karbi Anglong at Hamren in M.R. Case No. 01/2022, the petitioner has preferred the present petition for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.

6. It is submitted by Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class erred in law as well as in facts in passing the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 and as such, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. The evidence adduced by the respondent in support of her claim even if taken into consideration on their face value, no case of maintenance is made out against the present petitioner and as such the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, West Karbi Anglong is liable to be set aside and quashed.

7. As the case proceeded ex-parte in absence of the present petitioner, he had no opportunity to contest the case and thus, in his absence and without affording any reasonable opportunity, the learned Court below passed the order of maintenance which is liable to be set aside and quashed.

8. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no specific evidence in regards to mental and physical torture though she exhibited some medical report at the time of her examination which was exhibited as Exhibit-VI. The learned trial Court below also observed tha