Case Note & Summary
The applicant (husband) filed a criminal revision against the order of the Family Court, Nagpur, dated 22.08.2016, directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000 per month to the non-applicant (wife) from the date of order. The marriage was solemnized on 25.11.2012 and the wife was a housewife. The husband contended that he was not given proper opportunity to present his case before the Family Court. However, the High Court noted that on 02.12.2014, the husband had given an undertaking to clear all interim maintenance arrears before closing of evidence, but failed to do so. The Family Court's order dated 02.05.2016 showed that the husband was absent and despite sufficient opportunities, he failed to lead evidence. The husband's counsel argued that the amount was given to his earlier advocate who failed to deposit it, but the Court held that the husband could take steps against his advocate. The Court found no merit in the revision and dismissed it, upholding the maintenance order.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Maintenance - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 125 CrPC - Husband challenged maintenance order on ground of denial of opportunity - Court found that husband was given sufficient opportunities but failed to lead evidence and also breached undertaking to clear arrears - Held that no interference is warranted (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court erred in granting maintenance without giving proper opportunity to the husband to present his case.
Final Decision
The revision is dismissed. The order of the Family Court is confirmed.
Law Points
- Maintenance
- Opportunity of hearing
- Revision
- Family Court
- Undertaking
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (09) 213
Criminal Revision No.191/2016
Mr. S. G. Karmarkar for applicant, Mr. S. T. Dhurvey for non applicant
Jayant s/o Bhaduji Wasnik
Smt. Swarnalata w/o Jayant Wasnik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against maintenance order passed by Family Court
Remedy Sought
Applicant (husband) sought to set aside the maintenance order and remand the matter for fresh hearing
Filing Reason
Applicant claimed he was not given proper opportunity to present his case before the Family Court
Previous Decisions
Family Court No.3, Nagpur directed applicant to pay Rs.4,000 per month maintenance to non-applicant vide order dated 22.08.2016
Issues
Whether the Family Court erred in granting maintenance without giving proper opportunity to the husband to present his case.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant argued that proper opportunity was not granted and he was unable to present his case.
Non-applicant argued that applicant gave an undertaking on 02.12.2014 to clear arrears but failed, and despite sufficient opportunities he did not lead evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
A party who fails to avail sufficient opportunities to lead evidence and breaches an undertaking cannot later claim denial of opportunity. The Family Court's maintenance order based on such default is not liable to be interfered with in revision.
Judgment Excerpts
The submission on the part of the learned counsel for the applicant is that proper opportunity was not granted to the present applicant.
The order dated 02.05.2016 made by the learned Judge Family Court below Exh.1 shows that the applicant was absent and despite the sufficient opportunity, he failed to lead the evidence.
Procedural History
The Family Court No.3, Nagpur passed the maintenance order on 22.08.2016 in Petition No.E296/2014. The applicant filed Criminal Revision No.191/2016 in the High Court challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 125
