R. CHOCKALINGAM Vs. SUNDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under Sec. 439, Criminal Procedure Code A.I.es out of proceedings in M.C. No. 334 of 1965 instituted under Sec. 488, Criminal Procedure Code, before the learned District Magistrate of Ramanathapuram by one Sundari against one Chockalingam. Sundari has alleged in her petition that Chockalingam married her, and she claims maintenance for herself and her child. Chockalingam appeared before the Court and filed an application M.P. No. 863 of 1965 stating that, for the reasons mentioned in his petition, the Court might be pleased to dispense with his personal attendance and to permit him to appear by a Pleader. He submitted that the action was in the nature of a blackmail but we are not now concerned with it. He pointed out that he was District Superintendent of Police, Kottayam District in Kerala State, and that,, because of his official duties, it would not be possible for him to attend the Court of the District Magistrate at Devakottai for all the hearings. Sundari filed a memorandum of objection stating that the presence of Chockalingam was necessary since her witnesses had to identify him. The learned District Magistrate has dismissed the petition, and hence this revision petition by Chockalingam.

(2.) In the course of his order, the learned District Magistrate refers to Sec. 488(6), Criminal Procedure Code, which runs thus:

(3.) I am unable to agree with the learned District Magistrate, when he thinks that Sec. 488(6), Criminal Procedure Code, does not empower him to grant general exemption to the husband to be represented by his Pleader at the hearings. Sec. 488(6) does not contain any such limitation. The words' when his personal attendance is dispensed with ' ' are wide enough to confer ample powers on the Magistrate to give general exemption to the husband. Of course, it is always open to the Magistrate to insist on the presence of the husband at any particular hearing or hearings for purposes of identification or otherwise.