Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suraj Singh Tomar vs Smt. Meenakchhi Tomar on 12 April, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR-1309-2022
Suraj Singh Tomar Vs. Smt. Meenakshi Tomar and anr.
Gwalior, Dated : 12/04/2022
Shri Anant Kumar Bansal, Counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajeev Upadhyay, Counsel for the State.
This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of CrPC has been
filed against the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Case No.151/2019, by
which the interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month has been
awarded in favour of the respondent No. 1 and interim maintenance of
Rs.1,500/- per month has been awarded to the respondent No. 2.
I.A. No.5679/2022 has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
It is submitted that the impugned order was passed on 11.02.2020 and thereafter due to lock-down as well as the Court proceedings were kept in the suspended animation, the applicant could not file the revision. Even the counsel for the applicant did not give the correct information to the applicant, therefore, he could not appear before the Trial Court on 24.11.2021 and he has been proceeded ex parte. The applicant has filed an application for grant of certified copy of the impugned order on 05.04.2022 which has not been received so far and as soon as the said copy is supplied, he would file the same.
The present revision has been filed on the basis of photocopy of the impugned order which also bears the signature of the Presiding 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1309-2022 Suraj Singh Tomar Vs. Smt. Meenakshi Tomar and anr. Judge.
Counsel for the applicant could not explain as to how he succeeded in getting the photocopy of the impugned order. From the photocopy which has been placed on record, it is clear that even the cause title is not mentioned. Thus, it is clear that by hook and crook, the applicant has succeeded in getting the photocopy of the original record, which is a matter of serious concern.
Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to look into the matter and to verify as to how the photocopy of the original record was supplied to the applicant.
It is fairly conceded by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been proceeded ex parte and he was not aware of the impugned order dated 11.02.2020. It was also conceded by Shri Bansal that interim maintenance amount awarded against the applicant has not been deposited. Respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife and respondent No. 2 is the child of the applicant. It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and if he is an able bodied person, then he cannot refuse to pay maintenance amount to his wife and child merely on the ground that he has no source of income. The interim maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- awarded to the respondent No. 1 and interim maintenance amount of Rs.1500/- awarded to the respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be on a higher side. 3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-1309-2022 Suraj Singh Tomar Vs. Smt. Meenakshi Tomar and anr. Accordingly, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Registry is directed to send a photocopy of the impugned order which has been filed by the applicant along with the present revision to the Trial Court for necessary enquiry.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2022.04.13 16:45:49 +05'30'