IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Revision No. 10 of 2011

Daleshwar Prasad Verma

...

...

…

Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand

2. Anita Devi

...

...

... Opposite Parties

---

CORAM

: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, Advocate

For the State

: A. P. P.

For the O.P. No.2

: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate

05/01.03.2013

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the O.P. No.2 as well as the learned counsel for the

State.

Petitioner has filed this application for setting aside the

order dated 27.09.2010 to the extent whereby an amount of Rs.

5,000/- (five thousand) was awarded against the petitioner for

recalling the ex-parte order passed by the Court below dated

20.07.2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

O.P. No.2 has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

for granting her maintenance, claiming herself as wife of the

present petitioner and the case was registered as Maintenance

Case No. 60 of 2008 and thereafter the notice was issued to the

present petitioner. It is also submitted that though the petitioner

has received the notice on 17.06.2010, but at that time he was in

custody in connection with another case i.e. Complaint case No.

476 of 2009 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and

under Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further

contended that the petitioner was released on 29.09.2010 but the

Court below has passed an ex-parte order on 20.07.2010. After

releasing from the jail custody, petitioner filed an application for

recalling the ex-parte order, the Court below after hearing him

recalled the ex-parte order, but imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five

thousand).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the

petitioner was in jail, he could not contest the case, even he could

not file any show cause in the instant case, therefore, imposition

of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) is totally unreasonable and

the amount is also very excessive.

Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has appeared and

submitted that the petitioner received the notice on 17.06.2010.

Even he appeared from the jail in Court, but he did not pray for

any adjour5nment in the said case. The Court below after granting

number of adjournments, ultimately having no way, heard the

case as ex-parte. Thereafter, when the petitioner came to know

and filed an application for recalling the order, the Court below

has considered the petitioner's case and recalled the ex-parte

order, but considering the harassment of the O.P. No.2 has

imposed the cost, vide impugned order which is not at all

unreasonable and there is no ground for interference with the

order by this Court.

Considering the submissions made by both the parties and

considering the materials available in record, I find that the

petitioner even appeared before the Court below on 17.06.2010,

but did not take any step and the Court below has given number

of adjournments for the interest of justice to the petitioner. Even

then, the petitioner neither prayed for any adjournment nor he

has taken any step in this case. On the other hand, I find the O.P.

No.2 had appeared on each and every date which is quite

harassment to her which is only due to the petitioner, therefore, I

do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in

respect of cost awarded to the petitioner. Accordingly, this

revision application is dismissed.

(Jaya Roy, J.)

Satayendra