MIRZA HASAN BEG Vs. ISHRAT YASMEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 17-4-98 passed by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur, in Criminal Revision No. 160/97, the applicant has filed this petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Facts of the case which led to filing of this petition are that the applicant is the wife of non-applicant. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance. The trial Court passed an ex-parte order dated 7-8-95 and granted maintenance to the non-applicant @ Rs. 500 /- per month, against the applicant. The applicant filed a revision before the Sessions Judge for setting aside ex-parte order which was registered as Criminal Revision No, 202/ 1995. Vide order dated 23-11-96 the learned Sessions Judge granted liberty to the applicant to move an application under Section 126 (ii) of the Cr. P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Accordingly, the applicant filed an application under Section 126 (ii) of the Cr. P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. No reason was assigned for setting aside the ex-parte order in the application. However, in the affidavit enclosed with the application it was stated by applicant that his counsel informed him that he would be represented by the counsel and he need not appear personally. Whenever his personal appearance would be necessary, he would be informed by him. His case was fixed for 7-8-95, but, he could not appear on the date because his counsel did not inform him. His counsel also did not appear and the case proceeded ex parte against him. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the application with the observation that the same is barred by limitation,

(3.) Aggrieved by this order, the applicant filed a revision before the Sessions Judge which was registered as Revision No. 38/ 97. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 15-2-97 holding that the application is within limitation and remanded the case for decision on merits.