PRABHAKAR Vs. SOU PRAMILABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although originally filed as a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition has been treated as an application under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure and is, therefore, placed before the single Judge for hearing.

(2.) The short question which arises in this application is whether the trial Court was in error in proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents 1 to 4 filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 9th Court Nagpur, under section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming maintenance from the petitioner. It appears that the counsel for the petitioner in the Trial Court Mr. H. N. Vaidya, met with an accident in Feb., 1980, and was not, therefore, in a position to attend the Court to represent the petitioner. It further appears that on 6-3-1980, the case was fixed for evidence before the trial Court and the petitioner was himself present on that date in the Court. He made application (Ex. 15) on 6-3-1980 requesting for an adjourned on the ground that his counsel was not in a petitioner to attend the Court in view of accident. The adjournment was granted to him and the case was fixed for evidence on 8-4-1980. It is worthwhile to notice at this stage that the petitioner was during the relevant time serving at Kolhapur. On 8-4-1980, petitioner sent a telegram to inform the Court that he was ill and that the case should be adjourned to a suitable date. The said telegram, it appears from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, was not followed by an application or a medical certificate. However, the learned trial court adjourned the case to 5-5-1980. The petitioner did not remain present even on that day. The learned trial Court, therefore, proceeded ex-parte against him and recorded the evidence on he half of the respondents and passed the order granting maintenance to the respondents from the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner challenged this order before the Sessions Judge in revision, principally on the ground that the learned trial Court was in error in proceeding ex-parte against him. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision of the petitioner. Hence this application under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.