MEHTA POPATLAL BHANUSHANKER Vs. KASHIBEN BHANABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter comes before this court upon a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge Bhavnagar under sec. 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code recommending that the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhavnagar on February 22 1971 in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 76 of 1970 be set aside and the learned Judicial Magistrate be directed to hear the objections taken up by the husband in his memo of objection. A few relevant facts may be stated. Bai Kasiben Bhanabhai wife of Mehta Popatlal Bhanushanker made an application under sec. 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhavnagar being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 1969 alleging that Mehta Popatlal Bhanushanker was her husband and that he has neglected or refused to maintain her and a direction be given that her husband should pay her an amount of Rs. 40/per month by way of maintenance. An order to that effect was made on October 3 1969 It appears that the husband did not appear at the hearing of the application and the proceeding was disposed of ex parte. As the husband failed to pay the amount for a period of 4 months commencing from April 3 1970 the wife filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 76 of 1970 praying for executing the order and issuing a warrant to recover an amount of Rs. 160.00. This application was made on August 4 1970 A notice of the application was served upon the husband. In response to the notice he appeared and filed a statement contending that even though he was not served in the main maintenance application the order was made ex parte which is illegal and further that the woman claiming to be his wife was not his wife but a mistress and that the court has no jurisdiction to make an order under sec. 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the application observing that executing court cannot go behind the order and directed the husband to pay the amount of arrears within one month failing which necessary warrant would be issued. The husband preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 30 of 1971 in the court of the Sessions Judge Bhavnagar. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the learned Judicial Magistrate was in error in rejecting the contention raised by the husband and therefore the order rejecting the objection deserves to be set aside. Accordingly the learned Sessions Judge referred the case to this court for passing appropriate order in the matter.

(2.) In my opinion the reference must be rejected. Kashiben filed an application under sec. 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging that the opponent therein mentioned namely Mehta Popatlal Bhanushanker was her husband and that he has either neglected or refused to maintain her and that he be directed to pay a certain amount per month by way of maintenance. A notice of the application was directed to be served upon the husband. Ultimately the court passed all ex parte order against the husband. The husband did not take any step to get that order set asideS even after he came to know about it. Instead when the wife made an application for executing the order he resisted the same by saying that the original ex parte order was illegal and the woman claiming the status of wife was a mistress. Such an objection could not have been permitted to be agitated in an execution application. If an ex parte order is made against the husband in-an application under sec. 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code the law provides a procedure for getting such orders vacated at the instance of the husband. Sub-sec.

(3.) If the court has decided to proceed ex parte in a proceeding under sec. 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in fact proceeds ex parte and passes an order such an order may be set aside at the instance of the husband for good cause shown by an application made within three months from the date of the order. Therefore the scheme of sub-sec. (6) of sec. 488 clearly indicates that if a proceeding is disposed of ex parte and if at the time of the execution of the order the husband comes to know that an ex parte order has been obtained against him the proper legal course open to him is to appear in the main maintenance application and apply to the court for setting aside the ex parte order on the ground either that he did not wilfully avoid service or did not wilfully neglect to attend the court. If the cause shown by the husband is good or sufficient the court can set aside the ex parte order and permit the husband to appear and contest the proceeding.