Court upheld maintenance order based on thorough assessment of circumstances while emphasizing the need for proper evaluation of income and attendance factors due to natural disasters.

Order on Board

25.06.2025

1.

Heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant.

2.

Heard Ms. Purnima Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

3.

The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act and in exercise thereof call for the records of the case from the Court below, if necessary, and after hearing the parties in the matter, set aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure-A/1) in case No. 524/14 passed by the 1"" Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur.

4.

Brief Facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent herein are husband and wife, they got married on 10.12.2005 at Ahemdabad and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife at Ahemdabad with the applicant's family, till November 2012. That, the respondent filed an application under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, for the maintenance from applicant/husband. The respondent in her application stated that applicant tortured the respondent and always taunted the respondent for bringing dowry not as per their expectations in marriage and further ousted the respondent from matrimonial house in November 2012. Even the applicant never took care of the respondent whenever the respondent got ill and further pleaded that applicant and his family member without any reason harass the respondent and always asked for a car and demand dowry amounting of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Further stated that the applicant had never returned the respondent's "stridhan" and the applicant had already initiated the divorce proceedings. The respondent further stated that the applicant is from well to do family and currently running a business and earning Rs.3,50,000 per month. The currently respondent is unemployed and there is no source of her income. Therefore, the respondent cannot maintain herself and prayed for Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance from the applicant. The learned family court was pleased to grant time to respondent to file reply of the application filed by the applicant and further fixed the matter for 08.07.2019. On 08.07.2019 the learned judge of family court was on holiday so the matter was further fixed for 06.08.2019. On 06.08.2019 the applicant was failed to appear before the learned family court and from his counsel filed an application and stated that flood had hit the whole state of Gujrat and the applicant is the resident of Ahmedabad and due to that the applicant failed to appear before the learned family court. The learned family court surprisingly made the applicant ex-parte on 06.08.2019 even when the counsel on behalf of applicant appeared before the family court. The respondent taking benefit of the situation end her evidence and the learned family court fixed matter for final hearing on 08.08.2019 and after final hearing on 08.08.2019 the learned family court ex-parte passed the impugned order on 13.08.2019 (Annexure A-1), partly allowed the respondent maintenance application and grant Rs.10,000/- per month. The copy of relevant part of order sheets are filed and annexed herewith as ANNRXURE-A/3. The applicant submits that a glance of the impugned order will make it clear that the court below has committed a grave error of law and jurisdiction by passing the ex-parte order dated 06.08.2019 even when the counsel on behalf of applicant appeared before the court. The court while arriving at this conclusion has not taken the fact that the applicant is resident of Ahmedabad and d