The court ruled that maintenance orders must adhere to due process and sufficient evidence, setting aside an ex-parte order due to lack of notice and inadequate proof.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

1. This Criminal Revision No. 101 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 06.03.2014 passed by Sri Pravas Kumar Singh, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla in Maintenance Case No. 41 of 2011 by which the maintenance case filed under section 125 Cr.P.C has been allowed ex-parte by the learned Principal Judge by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the minor child of the petitioner from the date of the judgment on every 10th of the month as well as directed to pay Rs.5000/- lump sum amount as litigation cost to the opposite party.

2. The case of the O.P. No. 2 (i.e. wife), in brief, is that she had filed the maintenance case bearing Maintenance Case No. 41 of 2011 stating therein that opposite party is the poor girl of Schedule Caste and while grazing cattle in January 2007 petitioner accosted her and had committed rape upon her. Thereafter she was in continuous relationship with the petitioner on the assurance of marriage and twice she was forced to abort the child. It has been stated that she was living with the petitioner as a spouse and has given birth to a son on 15.11.2009 and she is having no means of livelihood although petitioner is the Owner of the Bus and Car and is earning from agriculture also.

It has also been stated that the petitioner had kept the opposite party as his wife in Gumla and Lohardaga and later on one case bearing No. C-154 of 2009 (G.R. No. 440/2010) has also been instituted upon the petitioner. She has further stated that the petitioner has got one Bus plying between Bokaro to Giridih and is also earning 300 Mound of Agricultural Paddy and earning monthly income of Rs.1,00,000/- and has also got seventeen (17) Acre land and is also having a Maruti Car and hence she may be given maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/-.

3. Heard Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Someshwar Roy, learned APP appearing for the State and Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla in Maintenance Case No. 41 of 2011 is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned court below has passed Ex-parte judgment on 06.03.2014 against the petitioner without serving him any notice. It is submitted that the petitioner is a married man and working as a Driver in different areas for survival of his family. It is submitted that as far as allegation of rape against the petitioner is concerned, the O.P.No. 2 has already lodged a criminal case against the appellant bearing Sisai P.S. Case No. 82 of 2010 dated 03.06.2010 for offences under section 376/313/420 IPC arising out of Complaint Case No. 154 of 2009 which is pending before the learned Trial Court for evidence. It is submitted that in the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner had been in custody and was released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench (Mr. Justice Ananda Sen) of this Court on 25.04.2017 in B.A. No. 2828 of 2017. It is submitted that the petitioner, after being released from the judicial custody, he tried to return back in his work as a Driver but due to the case lodged by the O.P. No. 2, no one has given work in the City and due to financial crisis and several issues, he left the city and started working as a Driver in Mamta Nursing Home, Sector-4, Bokaro. It is submitted that there is neither any evidence adduced by the O.P. No. 2 nor any DNA Test Report which shows that the son of the O.P. No. 2 is anymore connected with the petitioner. It is submitted that as per the information of the petitioner, the O.P. No. 2 since long is living with one Prakash Lohra and who is working as a Mistri in Bero, District-Ranchi. It is submitted that neither the petitioner nor any person from the side of the petitioner received any notice in Maintena