MUSTAQ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. has been preferred by the husband. The Magistrate allowed maintenance to the wife, opposite-party. The matter ultimately was taken up in revision. The revisional court had set aside that order and remanded the case for disposal in accordance with law. He, however, at the sane time, laid down a condition that the petitioner should deposit Rs. 2,500 ( Rs. Twenty Five hundred) in the Magistrate's Court i.e., maintenance for about one year for the children by way of adjustment which will he adjusted towards the final order. It is urged that this order is bad and condition could not have been imposed.

(2.) Earlier, the dispute during arguments was whether the order was ex-parte or not. Though petitioner did not file the order sheet, it has been filed from the side of the opposite-party and it would appear from the order sheet that the maintenance was granted by the Magistrate in ex-parte proceedings as the present petitioner absented. Under Sec. 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is open to the court for setting aside ex-parte order, to impose condition and even costs. It would he hardly material as to whether such condition has been imposed by the Magistrate himself or the revisional court which was giving relief to the petitioner under Sec. 126 Cr. P.C., so it was for that court which could also impose conditions and even impose costs.

(3.) Expression used in Sec. 126(2) Crimial P.C. is subject to such terms and conditions. The terms in this case is otherwise reasonable Children will not be made to starve on account of lingering on the proceedings, so if any precautions have been taken in that regard, the order cannot he interfered with particularly when it has been made clear that the amount payable by any final order. Rather the order is reasonable. Inherent powers are to be exercised to serve the ends of justice and not to defeat it.