SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 2133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Rajeev Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sheetal Sharma and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1567 of 2022
Decided On : 05-05-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.K. Punia, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sidharth Mandawat, Advocate.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125 and 126(2) - Challenge against ex-parte order - Ex-parte maintenance order passed without granting an opportunity to be heard is contestable; procedure followed for service was improper as petitioner was abroad - Petitioner can apply to set aside the ex-parte order within three months, with the trial court directed to consider condonation of the limitation period sympathetically due to lost time in approaching the wrong forum. (Paras 1-6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges an ex-parte maintenance order directing him to pay Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents monthly, made without the petitioner’s presence or hearing during his absence from the country.

Findings of Court:
The revision petition is dismissed, allowing the petitioner to file an application to set aside the ex-parte order with a consideration for condonation of limitation.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the ex-parte order made without a hearing and the proper method of service upon the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that ex-parte orders should not be passed without giving parties a fair opportunity to be heard and that the trial court shall evaluate due service appropriately.

Result: Revision petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply for setting aside the order.

Table of Content
1. challenge of ex-parte maintenance order (Para 1)
2. arguments for and against the ex-parte order (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's authority on ex-parte orders (Para 4 , 5)
4. direction for resetting ex-parte order (Para 6)
5. disposition of the stay petition (Para 7)

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

By way of filing the present revision petition under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C., challenge has been made against the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, No.2, Udaipur in case No.355/2020 whereby the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and an ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner. Vide order dated 21.09.2022, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.2 every month as maintenance.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ex-parte order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court may be quashed and set aside as the same has been passed without granting any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and hence, adversely impacting his right to a fair hearing. He further submits that the procedure which was opted to effect the service upon the petitioner was not proper as the petitioner was not present in the country at that point of time.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference of this Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The provision stipulated under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. provides that the petitioner may be heard and the ex-parte order so passed may be set aside if good cause is shown on an application made within three months from the date of passing of the order. In the case at hand, the impugned order passed by the Court below was an ex-parte order passed on an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and as per Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C., an application for setting aside the impugned ex-parte order can be preferred by the petitioner before the court below, thus, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the instant revision petition with liberty to the petitioner to move an application for setting aside of the impugned ex-parte order before the trial Court.

6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the trial Court for setting aside the order passed ex-parte within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. The learned trial Court is directed to take a sympathetic view while considering condonation of limitation period of three months as significant amount of time has been lost by the petitioner on account of approaching the wrong forum. The learned trial Court shall pass an order in accordance with law after examining the issue regarding due service.

7. The stay petition also stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top