SK HASEMUL Vs. RAJURA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate for the petitioner.

(2.) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda was hearing an application of the opposite party under Sections 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The petitioner-husband filed an adjournment petition but there was none to move the same and the learned Magistrate at 1. 1. 20 A. M. proceeded to hear the application ex parte and disposed of the application expart on 12. 3. 2007. The order was challenged in revision before the learned Sessions Judge of Malda who was not pleased to allow the revision and confirmed the magisterial order on 4. 12. 2007. Against the order of learned sessions Judge, this application under Section 482 of Cr. P. G. has been filed. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge referred to Rule 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Rules, 1986 which provided a proviso under which that 'if the Magistrate is satisfied that the respondent is willtully avoiding service or willfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on application made within seven days from the date thereof subject to such terms as to payment of cost to the opposite party as the Magistrate, may think just and proper. '

(3.) MR. Banerjee submitted that the proviso to Rule 4 of the said Rules does not apply because it is not a case where the respondent was willingly avoiding the service or willingly neglecting to attend the Court. It is submitted that the respondent simply prayed for adjournment by filing a petition but for reasons not known, the application for adjournment could not be moved through the lawyer and this resulted in dismissal of the said application for adjournment.