IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with Supreme Court guidelines for maintenance proceedings, including the filing of affidavits disclosing assets and liabilities.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

I.A. No. 7086 of 2023

2. This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 172 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Petition.

3. In view of the statements made in this interlocutory application, the delay of 172 days in filing this criminal revision petition is condoned.

4. I.A. No. 7086 of 2023 is, accordingly, allowed.

Criminal Revision No. 1362 of 2022

5. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.02.2022 passed by learned Principal District Judge- cum- Family Judge, Ramgarh in Original Maintenance Case No. 01 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the learned Family Judge, Ramgarh has been pleased to allow the petition under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 ex-parte against the petitioner and the petitioner has been directed to pay as maintenance by 10th of every succeeding month Rs.5,000/- per month to his wife (opposite party no. 2) and Rs.1,000/- per month to his minor daughter (opposite party no. 3) until she is married or is gainfully employed. The amount of maintenance has been directed to be paid from the date of application i.e. from 03.01.2020 and the petitioner has been further directed to pay the arrears of maintenance amount within one month of the said order, failing which the opposite party no.2 is entitled to get the same recovered through process of law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 22.06.2021 passed by the learned Family Court to submit that the notice in the case was served upon his brother and not to him and therefore, the petitioner had no knowledge regarding the proceeding, which has resulted in passing of the ex-parte order. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is an unemployed person and the impugned order calls for interference.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order be set-aside and one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to contest the case on merits before the learned Family Court. He has also submitted that the income of the petitioner has been tentatively taken as Rs. 25 to 30 thousand per month while granting the maintenance and in fact, the petitioner is unemployed though he is a B. Tech Graduate.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 who has joined online has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the petitioner and his brother were living under the same roof and therefore, the notice was accepted as validly served. The petitioner purposely did not participate in the proceedings. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order is a well-reasoned order and only a meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- for the wife and Rs.1,000/- for the minor daughter has been awarded as maintenance and the order passed by the learned Family Court does not call for any interference. He has also submitted that the maintenance amount has been directed to be paid from the date of application i.e. 03.01.2020.

9. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has paid Rs.50,000/- to the private opposite parties in the year 2023.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is B. Tech. graduate. It is further not in dispute that private opposite parties i.e. opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are the wife and daughter of the petitioner respectively. From the perusal of the order dated 22.06.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, it appears that the notice served upon the brother of the petitioner has been accepted as validly served upon the petitioner and the proceeding was held ex-parte. The service of notice upon the petitioner is being disputed by the petitioner and the fact remains that the impugned order is an ex-parte order so far as the petitioner is