DEEPCHAND Vs. USHABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this petition is preferred against the order dated 16-1-1992 passed by the learned additional sessions judge in cr. Revn. No. 376/1991 confirming the order passed by the learned judicial magistrate first class ('jmfc' for short), ii court, bijapur in crl. Misc. No. 42/1990. In fact, the learned additional sessions judge dismissed the revision petition on the count that the revision petition was barred by time. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are as under.

(2.) the instant respondent filed criminal miscellaneous No. 42/1990 for maintenance under Section 125, cr. P.c. against the instant petitioner. It appears that the learned jmfc purported to cause serve of notice to the instant petitioner by registered post. It is further seen that the instant petitioner is shown as having refused the registered post, with the result, he was treated ex-parte and the order came to be passed by the learned jmfc, directing the instant petitioner to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- from 26-2-1990. This order was challenged before the learned additional sessions judge, bijapur in crl. Rev. No. 376/1991. However, the additional sessions judge found that the revision petition was barred by time. The application for condonation of delay in preferring the revision petition was dismissed. In the result, the revision petition also stood dismissed. It is under these circumstances, the instance petitioner has approached this court with this application.

(3.) I have beard Sri S.G. Kulkarni, counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.R. Biradar, counsel for respondent.