ARVIND SINGH Vs. REENA SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that looking to the facts of the case as the order passed by the Court below is incorrect, illegal, improper, hence, the matter may be heard finally at the motion stage itself without noticing to the respondents.

(2.) On due consideration, the instant criminal revision preferred within its limitation and as per facts of the case, the matter can be disposed of without even noticing to the respondents. Hence, the matter heard finally at the motion stage itself.

(3.) Brief facts, as per the revision petition, are that respondent No.1 had filed an application before the Judge, Family Court Korba, C.G. under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. which is registered as MJC No.98/2014. As the applicant was not represented, the Court below proceeded ex-parte and after hearing the matter ex-parte passed the order on 17-12-2014 and directed therein that for maintenance Rs.5000/- and Rs.3000/-, in total Rs.8000/- be given to the respondents every month. The applicant was in custody in Criminal Case No.1149/2014 (State Vs. Devendra Sadhu and three others, wherein he was arrayed as accused No.2) pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba, C.G. As per para 16 of the judgment dated 18-03- 2015 passed in the aforesaid criminal case, he was in custody from 01-11- 2014 to 18-03-2015. The present applicant and other co-accused were acquitted for the charges. Thereafter, when the applicant came to know regarding the ex-parte order passed against him in the MJC No.98/2014, he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC on 30-03-2015. The said application was registered as MJC No.80/2015. After hearing both of the parties, vide order dated 03-10-2015, the Court below held that as required under the provisions of law for Order 9 Rule 13, i.e., within 30 days no any application has been preferred to set aside the ex-parte order, also no any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed to condone the delay, hence, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC is not maintainable. Consequently, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the applicant.