Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. This revision petition was delayed by 1410 days. Application to condone the delay was allowed by this Court, on condition. Before getting report of compliance of the conditions, the revision happened to be numbered by the Registry. Any way, in the particular nature of the case, I find that the revision petition itself can be disposed of.

3. On hearing both sides, and on perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the matter requires to be adjudicated, and decided on merits. It is not known on what definite materials, the learned Magistrate directed the revision petitioner to return 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments, and to make payment of Rs.1.5 Lakhs. As regards the quantum of maintenance also, there must be a decision on merits. Such an adjudication and decision can be made only after hearing the revision petitioner also. Of course, it is true that he had received notice in the proceedings. But he could not make appearance in the trial court, and thus the case happened to be decided ex-parte against him. When he has some grievance as regards the quantum of maintenance and also the direction to make payment of huge amount inclusive of the value of ornaments, I feel it appropriate that the dispute be decided afresh, and let the claims be adjudicated on merits. However, I find that the revision petitioner will have to be put to terms as a condition for allowing the revision petition.