GURJIT SINGH Vs. ANURADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned order dated 5.3.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-wife seeking maintenance has been restored to its original number.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the respondent herein filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') seeking maintenance along with an application for interim maintenance. During the pendency of the proceedings before the court, the application for interim maintenance came to be dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri on 31.3.2015, which was subsequently challenged by the respondent by way of filing a revision before the Additional District Judge, which too was dismissed on 8.9.2015. Aggrieved against the dismissal of the interim application for maintenance, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Misc. M 8748 of 2016 in this Court, which was disposed of on 21.3.2017. In the meantime, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri, dismissed in default the application filed under Section 125 of the Code by order dated 15.10.2015 due to non-appearance of the respondent as well as her counsel, which led to the respondent-wife to move an application for restoration of the case, which stood dismissed in default on 15.10.2015. The said application was allowed and the application filed under Section 125 of the Code was restored to its original number by order dated 9.4.2018. Aggrieved against the said order, the instant petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who is none other than the husband of the respondent, would contend that the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class has erred in restoring the application for maintenance, which stood dismissed in default, while ignoring the conduct of the respondent-wife. It is contended that the application filed for restoration is wholly silent as to when the respondent came to know about the order dated 15.10.2015, whereby her application stood dismissed in default.