Jharkhand High Court
Ramesh Mahli vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2023
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 101 of 2022
-----
Ramesh Mahli ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2.Sarita Kumari ...... Opp. Parties
-----
PRESENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner : Ms. Sunita Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, APP
For the O.P.No.2 : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
-----
JUDGMENT
CAV on:29.11.2023 Pronounced on:07/12/2023 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 2 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 3 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 Maintenance Case No.41 of 2011. It is submitted that when after lockdown petitioner stayed in his home town and then he was informed regarding the instant case as well as arrest warrant issued against him.
5. It is further submitted that although four witnesses i.e. P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-3 and P.W-4 namely Sarita Kumari, Shanti Devi, Mahendar Ram and Laxman Ram were examined on behalf of the Applicant-O.P. No.2 but their evidence is not reliable. It is submitted that save and except oral evidence of the family members of the O.P. No.2, there is nothing to prove the earning of the petitioner and not a single document has been exhibited and in an arbitrary manner, ex-parte maintenance order has been passed by the learned court below for making payment of Rs.5,000/- to 4 the son of the opposite party no.2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a poor Tempo Driver and ex-parte Judgment has been passed against him without service of notice and as such the impugned judgment may be set aside and this Cr. Revision No.101 of 2022 may be allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner did not appear despite paper publication of notice in the daily newspaper and as such no illegality has been committed by the learned court below. It is submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the O.P. No.2 and her son who has been born due to the act of the present petitioner and thus this Revision Application may be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2, after adopting the submission of the learned APP, has further submitted that this Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is fit to be dismissed with costs. It is submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this Court and has suppressed the several material facts and has tried to mislead this Court and hence this revision application is liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is submitted that the O.P. No.2 has lodged a case bearing Sisai P.S. Case No.82 of 2010 dated 03.06.2010 under section 376/313/420 I.P.C against the petitioner which is still pending. It is submitted that while living in relation with the petitioner, the appellant-O.P.No.2 has given birth to a child in the year 2009. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the judgment of maintenance in favour of the child on 06.03.2014. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed an 5 affidavit dated 13.12.2018 in connection with his anticipatory bail petition before the learned court below and which is enclosed a Annexure-A in the counter affidavit filed by the O.P. No.2 on 10.11.2022 stating therein that he is the biological father of the child and he will take all the responsibilities of the child. It is submitted that the petitioner has given two types of statement on an affidavit on oath, first affidavit in connection with the criminal case wherein he has sworn an affidavit and has categorically stated that he is the biological father of the child but in the present case on oath, he has stated that he is not the biological father of the child and thus, it is apparent that he has given false statement before this Court. It is submitted that the Applicant-O. P. No.2 is even ready for the DNA Test of the child. It is submitted that during hearing of the limitation application, the petitioner had given undertaking before this Court that he will pay Rs.25,000/- to the O.P. No.2 but here also he has tried to mislead the High Court and has not paid any money to the O.P. No.2. It is submitted that the petitioner has no respect for the Court's order and he did not appear before the learned court below deliberately and therefore, ex-parte Judgment was passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla and distress warrant has also been issued but he is not making the payment to the O.P. No.2. It is submitted that in view of the above, this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed.
8. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides.
9. It transpires from the record that initially First Appeal No.59 of 2021 was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court on 01.11.2021 and certain defects were pointed out by the Stamp Reporter.
610. Thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.01.2022 permitted the learned counsel for the appellant i.e. the present petitioner to remove the defect relating to nomenclature of the First Appeal as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, since, the impugned order had been passed in a proceeding under section 125 of the Cr.P.C by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla.
11. Thereafter, the said First Appeal No.59 of 2021 was converted into the present Criminal Revision which was re- numbered as Cr. Revision No.101 of 2022 and which was placed by the office before this Court on 07.04.2022.
12. Thereafter on 07.04.2022, this Court had issued notice upon the Applicant-O.P. No.2 and had passed the interim order in favour of the petitioner subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- to the O.P. No.2 and subject to final disposal of the case in presence of Ms. Sunita Kumari, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
13. However, even on 02.05.2022 the matter was placed before this Court and the petitioner had appeared through another learned counsel, Sri Raj Kishore Sahu appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the new learned counsel had shown his unawareness about the order of deposit of amount of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner. However, due to inadvertence on the part of the P.A. concerned and the office, the matter was placed before this Court on 12.05.2022 instead of 16.06.2022 and thereafter the case was fixed on 27.06.2022 and the interim order dated 27.04.2022 passed by this Court, was allowed to continue in favour of the petitioner.
14. It further transpires that on 14.07.2022 the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay Rs.25,000/- to the O.P. No.2 and as such the interim order dated 7 07.04.2022 was extended for four weeks, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- to the O.P. No.2 by the petitioner.
15. However, when the case was placed before this Court on 27.09.2022 then it was informed to the Court that the petitioner has not deposited the said amount of Rs.25,000/- and as such, this Court vide order dated 27.09.2022 had vacated the interim order dated 07.04.2022 by fixing the case on 22.11.2022 for considering the interlocutory petition i.e. I.A. No.1278 of 2022 and also on the point of Admission.
16. Thereafter on 17.11.2022, this Court had condoned the delay by observing that although the delay has not been satisfactorily explained but considering it a case of matrimonial dispute, the delay of around 2098 days was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the O.P. No.2.
17. Thereafter the case was placed for 'Admission' and the matter has been heard.
18. It transpires that one maintenance case bearing Maintenance Case No.41 of 2011 was filed on 28.11.2011 on behalf of the O.P. No.2 for grant of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month for herself and Rs.6,000/- per month for maintenance of children and for her education, total Rs.11,000/- per month from the petitioner.
19. It transpires from the Lower Court Record that the notice was issued upon the petitioner vide order dated 28.11.2011 itself and thereafter on 01.07.2012 again the Court below had directed to issue notice upon the petitioner which was issued on 20.07.2012 by the office and matter remained pending on 31.07.2012, 11.09.2012, 19.10.2012, 10.12.2012, 10.01.2013, 23.01.2013, 04.02.2013, 14.03.2013, 25.07.2013 respectively and even on 06.06.2013 but the petitioner did not appear.
820. Thereafter on 06.06.2013 the learned court below allowed the prayer of the O.P. No.2 seeking permission to publish the notice in Gazette and the learned court below directed the petitioner to take steps for Gazette publication on her cost and risk.
21. It transpires from the order sheet dated 11.11.2013 that instead of paper publication, the opposite party (i.e. the petitioner) did not turn up and as such the case was fixed for ex-parte judgment on 28.11.2013.
22. It transpires that the Applicant-O.P. No.2 has got examined four (04) witnesses in support of her case, who are as follows:-
(i) P.W-1 is the applicant Sarita Kumari i.e. O.P. No.2,
(ii) P.W-2 is Shanti i.e. the mother of the O.P. No.2,
(iii) P.W-3 is Mahendar Ram i.e. father of the O.P. No.2 and
(iv) P.W-4 is Laxman Ram i.e. uncle of the O.P. No.2.
23. However, no documentary evidence has been produced and no document has been marked as an Exhibit on behalf of the wife-O.P. No.2.
24. It transpires that the learned Court below has allowed the maintenance case in part by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards the maintenance to the minor child of the O.P. No.2 who is living with the O.P. No.2, which was made payable from the date of the order i.e. March, 2014 and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- as one lump sum was also allowed.
However, the learned court below has rejected the payment of maintenance amount to the O.P. No.2.
25. It transpires that although the petitioner has challenged the ex-parte Judgment passed against him by the learned Court below 9 but from the order sheet of the learned Court below, it reveals that despite paper publication of the notice, the petitioner had not appeared and as such vide order dated 11.11.2013 the learned court below had fixed ex-parte proceeding against him and the case was fixed for evidence.
26. It transpires that the learned court below has allowed the claim of the son of the Applicant-O.P. No.2 only on the basis of evidence led by her and who have been examined as P.W-1 to P.W-4 namely Sarita Kumari, Shanti, Mahender Ram and Laxman Ram by passing the order summarily and the learned court below has only allowed the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- to the son of the O.P. No.2 and no maintenance amount was allowed for the O.P. No.2 by referring the judgment reported in AIR 2005 SC 1809 (Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.) and AIR 1979 SC 362 (Bai Tahira vs. Ali Hussain Fidaalli Chothia and Anr.) and also by observing that section 125 Cr.P.C is meant to achieve a social purpose and its object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution.
27. Although the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment in this Criminal Revision Application but he has also not disputed the institution of Sisai P.S. Case No.82 of 2010 dated 03.06.2010 arising out of Complaint Case No.154 of 2009 for the offences under sections 376/313/420 of the IPC against him by the O.P. No.2.
28. It further transpires from the pleading of the petitioner that he had gone to judicial custody and he was released on bail by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi vide order dated 25.04.2017 passed in B.A. No.2828 of 2017.
29. From going through the evidence of the witnesses examined before the learned Court below, it transpires that P.W-1 10 is Sarita Kumari i.e. the O.P. No.2, who has filed maintenance case and supported her case by stating that the petitioner had committed rape upon her in the year 2007 and assured her of keeping with him and twice got her pregnancy terminated and the petitioner continued to maintain relationship with her. She has further stated that petitioner kept her in Gumla for around one year and 15 days in Lohardaga as his wife and she had given birth to a son Bunty on 15.11.2009. She has claimed that she has no source of income to maintain herself and her child. She has stated that petitioner Ramesh Mahli is a man of substantial means and he is running Bus in the route of Bokaro to Giridih and is also having 'Maruti Car' and has also seventeen (17.00) Acres of land and is earning Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One Lakh) per month.
However, O.P. No.2 has neither enclosed the copy of the complaint case nor the F.I.R nor any document of income of the petitioner nor the document of Bus and the landed property except by giving her oral statement.
30. P.W-2 is Shanti, who is the mother of the O.P. No.2 and she has also supported the case of the O.P. No.2 and stated that the petitioner has committed rape upon her daughter and has got terminated her pregnancy twice and the petitioner has assured of performing marriage with her but he has not performed marriage with her. Thereafter her daughter became pregnant and has given birth to a child. However, petitioner is not making any payment of maintenance amount. She has further stated that the petitioner has got seventeen (17) Acres of land, owns one Bus, one Tractor, one Maruti Car and one Motorcycle. However, she has also not filed any document in support of her evidence and also on the point of property of the petitioner.
31. P.W-3 is Mahendar Ram, the Father of the O.P. No.2 and 11 he has stated the same fact as stated by P.W-1 and P.W-2 and as such the same is not being repeated here. However, he has stated further that after termination of pregnancy of his daughter twice,, she again become pregnant and had given birth to a son namely Bunty Kumar on 15.11.2009 and when she pressurized upon him for marriage then the petitioner had fled away from the village. He has also stated that the brother of the petitioner is working in Jharkhand Police in Bokaro and has stated that Rs.8,000/- may be given to his daughter and his son for maintaining them.
32. P.W-4 is Laxman Ram, who is the Uncle of the O.P. No.2 and who has also supported the case of the O.P. No.2 and has stated the same fact as stated by P.W-1 and P.W-2 and P.W-3 has supported the case of the O.P. No.2. However, he has also not filed any document.
33. It transpires that the learned Court below merely on the basis of oral evidence has allowed the prayer of the O.P. No.2 in part by giving maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to her children. However, learned court below has not taken care to get the document of the O.P. No.2 which could have been brought on record in evidence.
34. From the pleadings of the petitioner made in this Criminal Revision, it transpires that the petitioner has also not disputed Sisai P.S. Case No.82 of 2010 instituted under sections 376/313/420 of the IPC against him by the O.P. No.2. He has further admitted that he was released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25.04.2017 in connection with Sisai P.S. Case No.82 of 2010.
35. It has come on record during evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-3 namely Sarita Kumari, Shanti and Mahendar Ram respectively that one of the brothers of the petitioner is posted in 12 Jharkhand Police in Bokaro and therefore, it would appear that even after institution of Sisai P.S. Case No.82 of 2010 under section 376/313/420 of the IPC against him, the petitioner has managed to remain outside for a long period till 2017, however, ultimately he was arrested but he granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide B.A. No.2828 of 2017 on 25.04.2017.
36. The plea of non-service of notice upon the petitioner is clear as it has come from the order sheet dated 11.11.2013 passed by the learned court below that the paper publication of the notice was done in the year 2011 but the petitioner did not appear and therefore, the court below has fixed the case ex-parte against the petitioner although notice by way of paper publication was not done.
37. From deposition of P.W-3, Mahendar Ram, it is also clear that one of the brothers of the petitioner is Chowkidar in village and the petitioner has not been arrested in the said case till 13.02.2014 i.e. on the date of evidence of P.W-3.
38. This is a case of sexual exploitation of the O.P. No.2 on behalf of the petitioner and for establishing physical relationship with the O.P. No.2.
39. Considering the conduct and approach of the petitioner and non-compliance of the Undertaking given before this Court on several occasions and also giving Undertaking on 14.07.2022, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not complied with the direction for payment of the maintenance amount to the O.P No.2 for a minor child. However, it is also on record that no documents has been filed to show the income of the petitioner and to show the paternity of the petitioner with respect to the claim of the O.P. No.2 that the petitioner is father of Bunty Mahli.
1340. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bai Tahira vs. Ali Hussain Fidaalli Chothia and Anr. reported in (1979) 2 SCC 316 at paragraphs 8 and 11 as follows:-
"Para-8:- Section 125 requires, as a sine qua non for its application, neglect by husband or father. The Magistrate's order proceeds on neglect to maintain; the Sessions Judge has spoken nothing to the contrary; and the High Court has not spoken at all. Moreover, the husband has not examined himself to prove that he has been giving allowances to the divorced wife. His case, on the contrary, is that she has forfeited her claim because of divorce and the consent decree. Obviously, he has no case of non-neglect. His plea is his right to ignore. So the basic condition of neglect to maintain is satisfied. In this generous jurisdiction, a broader perception and appreciation of the facts and their bearing must govern the verdict -- not chopping little logic or tinkering with burden of proof.
Para-11:- Nor can Section 127 rescue the respondent from his obligation. Payment of mehar money, as a customary discharge, is within the cognizance of that provision. But what was the amount of mehar? Rs 5000, interest from which could not keep the woman's body and soul together for a day, even in that city where 40% of the population are reported to live on pavements, unless she was ready to sell her body and give up her soul! The point must be clearly understood that the scheme of the complex of provisions in Chapter IX has a social purpose. Ill-used wives and desperate divorcees shall not be driven to material and moral dereliction to seek sanctuary in the streets. This traumatic horror animates the amplitude of Section 127. Where the husband, by customary payment at the time of divorce, has adequately provided for the divorcee, a subsequent series of recurrent doles is contra-indicated and the husband liberated. This is the teleological interpretation, the sociological decoding of the text of Section 127. The key-note thought is adequacy of payment which will take reasonable care of her maintenance."
41. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 636 at paragraphs 9, 18, 22 and 23 as follows:-
"Para-9:- The provision is enacted for social justice 14 and specially to protect women and children as also old and infirm poor parents and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. The provision gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves. Its provisions are applicable and enforceable whatever may be the personal law by which the persons concerned are governed. (See Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal [(1969) 3 SCC 802 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 127 :
AIR 1970 SC 446] .) But the personal law of the parties is relevant for deciding the validity of the marriage and therefore cannot be altogether excluded from consideration. (See Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav [(1988) 1 SCC 530 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 182 : AIR 1988 SC 644] .) Para-18:- It may be noted at this juncture that the legislature considered it necessary to include within the scope of the provision an illegitimate child but it has not done so with respect to a woman not lawfully married. However desirable it may be, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant to take note of the plight of the unfortunate woman, the legislative intent being clearly reflected in Section 125 of the Code, there is no scope for enlarging its scope by introducing any artificial definition to include a woman not lawfully married in the expression "wife".
Para-22:- That brings us to the other question relating to adequacy of the quantum of maintenance awarded to the child. It is not in dispute that when the claim petition was filed, Rs 500 was claimed as maintenance as that was the maximum amount which could have been granted because of the unamended Section 125. But presently, there is no such limitation in view of the amendment as referred to above.
Para-23:- Learned counsel for Respondent 2 submitted that there was no amendment made to the claim petition seeking enhancement. We find that this is a too technical plea. As a matter of fact, Section 127 of the Code permits increase in the quantum. The application for maintenance was filed on 1-9-1995. The order granting maintenance was passed by the learned JMFC on 31-7- 1999. The High Court enhanced the quantum awarded to the child from Rs 350 to Rs 500 with effect from the 15 order passed by learned JMFC. No dispute has been raised regarding enhancement and in fact there was a concession to the prayer for enhancement before the High Court as recorded in the impugned judgment. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we feel that the amount of maintenance to the child can be enhanced to Rs 850 with effect from today."
42. It further transpires that though the O.P. No.2 has appeared and filed counter affidavit but has not enclosed the FIR of Sisai P.S. Case No.82 of 2010 dated 03.06.2010 instituted for the offence under Section 376, 313 and 420 of the I.P.C. However, the O.P. No.2 has enclosed an affidavit dated 13.12.2018 marked as Annexure-A in the counter affidavit which is said to have been filed in connection with anticipatory bail application (but number has not been disclosed by the O.P. No.2 in her counter affidavit).
43. It appears from the said annexure-A enclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the O.P. No.2 that the petitioner has admitted his love affairs and relationship with Sarita Kumari and has also admitted and stated that a son Bunty Mahli aged around 10 years is born on account of their relationship. He has further stated that he has also performed special marriage with said Sarita Kumari in the registration office and he is willing to accept Bunty Mahli as his son.
44. It further reveals that the petitioner has mentioned in the affidavit that Bunty Mahli, born out of relationship of the petitioner and said Sarita Kumari, will be his son and he may be successor of his properties. The said affidavit dated 13.12.2018 has been signed by the petitioner Ramesh Mahli through a Notary Awni Kant Sharma, Advocate Association, Gumla but the number of anticipatory bail application is not mentioned.
45. It further transpires that the depositions of even prosecution witnesses in said Sisai P.S. Case has not been brought 16 on record and as such this Court is not in a position to ascertain the claim of the O.P. No.2.
46. It further transpires that anticipatory bail application number has not been mentioned in the counter affidavit marked as Annexure-A has been filed before the learned Court below and as such this fact is coming for the first time before this Court and therefore, it cannot be verified by this Court rather it can be verified by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla.
47. It also appears from the impugned judgment that no such document has been filed before the learned Court below.
48. It further transpires from the Lower Court Records that the direction given for paper publication of notice but no step was taken on behalf of the O.P. No.2 for paper publication of the notice and the case was fixed for evidence suddenly.
49. It further transpires that there is no corroborative evidence and no paternity has been proved and hence the learned Court below may take steps for DNA test of the petitioner and the O.P. No.2 and said Bunty Mahli.
50. Considering the facts mentioned above, the impugned ex- parte order dated 06.03.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla in Maintenance Case No.41 of 2011 is set aside in the interest of justice and the case is remitted to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla to decide the matter afresh and both the parties are directed to adduce their evidence on merit and O.P. No.2 may adduce her evidence again and her witnesses may be cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner properly and diligently and even the petitioner is permitted to lead his evidence in rebuttal but only after payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- to the O.P. No.2.
51. Both the parties will be at liberty to file their respective 17 documents in support of their case. However, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the O.P. No.2 and the learned Court below will permit the petitioner to lead his evidence on payment of Rs.50,000/- to the O.P. No.2-Sarita Kumari, otherwise petitioner will be debarred from leading his evidence and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
52. With this observation and direction, this Cr. Revision No.101 of 2022 is hereby allowed and remitted back.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) Saket/ A.F.R.