[2025:JHHC:11921] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2466 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2466 of 2017 ------ Sanjay Kumar @ Vicky, son of Late Mohan Prasad, resident of Village- Loco Colony, Qtr. No. 444-A, P.O. and P.S.- Khagaul, Danapur, District- Patna, State- Bihar … Petitioner Versus Manisha Devi, wife of Sanjay Kumar, resident of Pataniya Tola, P.O. and P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Sahebganj. … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Ms. Ragnini Kumari, Advocate Ms. Bandana Kumari Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Swami Nath Prasad Rai, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside the ex-parte order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahebganj in Original Maintenance Case No.21 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Principal Judge has allowed the monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the sole opposite party; who has been described as opposite party No.2 in several places in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the sole opposite party is the legally married wife of the petitioner and she was deserted by the petitioner, hence, the opposite party filed Original Maintenance Case No.21 of 2017. Notice was issued to the petitioner herein who was the opposite party of the Original Maintenance Case No.21 of 2017 by registered post with Acknowledgement [2025:JHHC:11921] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2466 of 2017 Due (AD) but neither the Acknowledgement Card nor the registered letter was returned to the court concerned within 30 days. Hence, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahebganj vide order dated 22.03.2017 held that the service of notice upon the opposite party of the original maintenance case is sufficient and as no one turned up, on behalf of the opposite party of the original maintenance case; set the said opposite party ex-parte. The petitioner herein who was the opposite party of the original maintenance case; has not challenged the said order dated 22.03.2017 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.21 of 2017, by the said Family Court. The petitioner did not participate in the Original Maintenance Case No.21 of 2017. 4. On the basis of the materials available in the record and the evidence placed before it, the learned Family Court, Sahebganj came to the conclusion that the applicant before it, is the wife of the opposite party before it. The relationship between them is not good. The opposite party of the maintenance case has deserted the applicant therein. The applicant of the maintenance case was not having any income of her own. It was further held that the opposite party has income of Rs.10,000/- per month but he is intentionally evading to maintain his wife and ordered for payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- by the opposite party of the maintenance case to the applicant of the maintenance case. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not received the notice of the case of Original Maintenance Case No.21 of 2017; hence, he could not defend himself. The petitioner remained busy in obtaining anticipatory bail for himself, his mother and another person. On 22.08.2017, the petitioner and the opposite party both agreed to live together. The petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No.2129 of 2017 for quashing the criminal proceeding of P.C.R. [2025:JHHC:11921] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2466 of 2017 Case No.347 of 2016 involving the offence punishable under Section 498A, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is next submitted that the impugned order is bad in law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is well aware about the order dated 22.03.2017 by which he was set ex-parte in the Original Maintenance Case No.21 of 2017 and the final order passed by the learned Family Court, Sahebganj in the said case dated 28.04.2017 but he has never approached the court concerned for setting aside the ex-parte order; either for maintenance or setting aside the order by which he was set ex-parte i.e. the order dated 22.03.2017. It is next submitted that there is absolutely no illegality in the petitioner herein, who was the opposite party No.2 in the said Original Maintenance Case No.21 of 2017, having been set ex-parte; consequent upon the notice issued to the opposite party of the said Original Maintenance Case by registered post with Acknowledgment Due (AD), did not return nor the AD Card returned within 30 days and the petitioner herein did not appear before the Family Court. Hence, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the order impugned before it. It is, therefore, submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is the mandate of law that where the summons were properly addressed, prepaid and duly sent by registered post with Acknowledgment [2025:JHHC:11921] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2466 of 2017 Due (AD), but neither the registered letter nor the acknowledgement card returns back within 30 days of such letter being sent; the court has the power to hold that service of summons upon the person to whom summons was issued; to be sufficient; notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgement having been lost or misled or for any other reason has not been received by the court. Therefore, as the undisputed fact remains that notice was sent to the opposite party No.2 of the Original Maintenance Case by properly addressing to the opposite party No.2 of the said case and such letter was prepaid and duly sent by registered post with Acknowledgment Due (AD) and as the undisputed fact remains that neither the letter nor the Acknowledgment Due (AD) card was returned within 30 days from the date of issuance of such summons, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that no illegality has been committed by the Family Court, Sahebganj in holding that service of notice to the opposite party No.2 is sufficient; vide its order dated 22.03.2017 and as the opposite party No.2 did not appear, in spite of the service of notice having been held sufficient, having set the opposite party No.2 of the original maintenance case ex-parte. As the petitioner herein, who was the opposite party No.2 of the said original maintenance case, did not appear before the court and did not put forth either any pleading or any evidence so, the Family Court, Sahebganj has also not committed any illegality in granting monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the opposite party No.2 of that case; based on the evidence available in the record. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason, warranting interference of this Court in the order dated 28.04.2017 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.21 of 2017 by the Family Court, Sahebganj. [2025:JHHC:11921] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2466 of 2017 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of April, 2025 AFR/ Saroj