GOPAL CHANDRA SAHU Vs. ANNAPURNA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the Criminal Revisions basically arise out of the orders passed on a petition under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the opposite party and hence are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the learned J. M. F. G, Koraput before whom the petition had been filed by the apposite party posted the case to 18 -7 -1987 for hearing on which date the Petitioner filed a petition through his advocate fat adjournment on the ground of his being sick and bed -ridden. The learned Magistrate rejected the petition since it was not supported by any medical certificate and asked the parties to get ready by 2.00 p.m. that day far hearing. Since the Petitioner as also his advocate were absent when the case was called far hearing, the Magistrate set the Petitioner ex parte and proceeded with examination of the witnesses of the opposite party and passed final orders an 20 -7 -1987 granting maintenance of Rs. 150/ - per month. The Petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 126, Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the ex parte order during pendency of which the opposite party had filed Criminal Revision No. 18188 (10]/87 SJ) far enhancement of the quantum of maintenance which was disposed of by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jeypore on 28 -4 -1988 enhancing, the maintenance to Rs. 250/ - per month. After the enhancement order was received by the learned Magistrate, be passed orders on 12 -5 -1988 on the petition under Section 128, Code of Criminal Procedure rejecting the same being of the view that since the appellate court had ordered for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance, the petition under Section 126, Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioner to set aside the order of the original Court is to be rejected. Criminal Revision No. 287/88 has been preferred against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge dated 28.4 -1988 enhancing the maintenance whereas Criminal Revision No. 475/88 has been preferred against the order dated 12 -5.1988 of the learned. Magistrate refusing to set aside the ex parte order.

(3.) IN the result both the revisions succeed as discussed above and the case is remitted back to the learned Magistrate who shall continue the proceeding from the stage it was on 18 -7 -1987.