Atul S/o. Bhaskarrao Thakare (Deshmukh), Versus Sau. Anuja W/o. Atul Thakare, and The State of Maharashtra.
(Bombay HC (Nagpur) (CRA No. 74 of 2012))
5. During the course of hearing it was pointed out by learned counsel Mr. Bhide that the application filed by nonapplicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not served upon the applicant in accordance with law. He has brought to my notice contents of the impugned judgment at paragraph No.10 which can be reproduced as under :
“10. The non applicant had filed the petition for divorce which was pending in this Court. His advocate received the service of
the notice of the present proceeding. The nonapplicant did not
remain present nor filed his say inspite of various opportunities
given to him hence by an order dtd 16.6.2011 the applicant
was directed to proceed without say.”
6. it is, thus, clear that there was no service of maintenance application on the applicant personally or on any of his family members. The application was served through the Advocate who was appearing on behalf of the applicant in separate proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
7. In my considered view, the service effected by the Family Court was not 'good service' in law. For this reason the order passed by the Family Court cannot be sustained. The applicant will have to be given opportunity of being heard and the application will have to be decided afresh.