CHITTI PRASADA RAO Vs. CHITTI ASIRIPOLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision case arose out of the maintenance proceedings initiated by the mother i.e., the 1st respondent herein against her three sons invoking the provisions contained under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. The maintenance is claimed on the ground that she has no means to maintain herself and that her sons i.e., the petitioners 1 to 3 herein neglected her. M.C.No.2() of 1992 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam filed for maintenance by the mother was ordered on 14-9-1992. Under the said order aaamount of Rs.500/- was ordered to be paid, as sought for, towards maintenance.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the said order is an ex-parte order without notice to the respondents in M.C. who are the revision petitioners herein. The impugned order shows that no notice was issued to the respondents and the order of maintenance, the relevant portion of which is as follows: "The statement of the petitioner prima-facie discloses the dire necessity and immediate help." makes it clear that the learned Magistrate intended to pass interim order but erroneously passed the said order as a final order in the maintenance case without issuing notice to the petitioners herein and making enquiry.

(3.) From the records produced before me, it is not clear as to why the notices were not served. The order passed by the court-below also does not disclose as to whether the notices are served on the respondents i.e., the revision petitioners herein. The maintenance case has been filed on 15-6-1992 while the order of maintenance was passed on 14-9-1992. Ms. Nanda, who has been appointed by the court as Amicus curiae for the 1st respondent contends that the very fact that three months have lapsed from the date of the institution of the maintenance case by the 1st respondent is proof positive that the petitioners herein were purposely evading the notice and as such the court below was correct in awarding even the final maintenance as such evasion of notices would amount to service in law and as such, the final maintenance order passed by the court- below on 14-9-1992 is valid and unassailable. But, without there being any material on record, it is not proper for me to comment that there is evasion of notice on the part of the petitioners. As such, I conclude that the order of maintenance dated 14-9-1992 was passed without notice to the petitioners and in that view of the matter, the said ordet is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside-