SAMUNDEESWARI Vs. NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C to call for the records from the Judicial Magistrate II, Mannargudi, relating to the order made in C.M.P.No.2768 of 2005 in M.C.No.13 of 2004, dated 21.07.2005 and set aside the same.) This Criminal Revision is directed against the order, dated 21.07.2005 made in M.C.No.13 of 2004 in C.M.P.No.2768 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mannargudi.

(2.) IT has been admitted that the revision petitioner is the daughter of the respondent, who filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, claiming maintenance from his daughter before the trail court. As the court summons sent by the revision petitioner was returned as refused on 26.07.2004, the trial court held the service of notice as sufficient, the petitioner herein was called absent and set exparte. Then P.W.1 was examined, Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held that the respondent herein is entitled to get maintenance from the revision petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m from the date of the application filed by the respondent herein. Subsequently, the revision petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C to set aside the exparte order passed by the court below. In the petition, the petitioner herein has stated that she did not refuse to receive the notice, as she was working in the primary health center. According to her, summon could have been served through her superior officer, as per Section 66 of Cr.P.C. She has further stated that her gross salary was only Rs.8,077/- p.m and hence, the award of maintenance is exorbitant.

(3.) UNDER Section 66 of Cr.P.C, if the court summons has to be served on a Government servant, pertaining to his official duty, it must be sent in duplicate to the Head Office, in which such person is employed and the summons should be served in the manner provided by Section 62 of the Act. But, here in the instant case, the respondent herein filed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, seeking maintenance from the petitioner, she being his daughter, as he was unable to maintain himself at the age of 70 years. Admittedly, the petition was not filed against the revision petitioner in her official capacity and therefore, as held by the trial court, there is no legal need for the compliance of Section 66 r/w 62 of Cr.P.C.