SURTI LAL Vs. SUDESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to this revision petition are that Sudesh Kumari and her two minor sons filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Surti Lal husband of Sudesh Kumari for the grant of maintenance allowance. Summons was sent to Surti Lal by registered post. Upon the report of the postal authorities that Surti Lal refused to accept the summons, the Magistrate passed an ex -parte order allowing the application against him. Surti Lal applied for the setting aside of the same on various grounds, inter alia, that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for the service of summons by registered post on Surti Lal. The Magistrate without dealing with this crucial point, dismissed the application for setting aside the ex -parte order on other ground.

(2.) IN the present petition, the ex -parte order has been challenged on the ground that the mode of service of summons adopted by the Magistrate is not permissible by law. Support was sought to the contention by relying on Gurnam Singh v. Mt. Datto, AIR 1950 East Punjab 20, laying down : - "The proceedings under Section 488 are judicial proceedings of a criminal Court and are governed by the Code. Section 68 applies to summons to accused as well as persons summoned in proceedings under the Code. The service of summons by registered post letter on the person proceeded against under Section 488 is nor permitted. In such a case the person cannot be proceeded against ex -parte under the proviso to Section 488(6)". Mr. R.S. Sharma appearing for Sudesh Kumari and her sons was unable to cite any ruling to the contrary, nor was reference made to any provisions of the new Code to differ from the above -quoted view of the learned Judge. That being so, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it has to be quashed.

(3.) ALL the same Mr. R.S. Sharma was at pains to argue that for years on end, Surti Lal has neglected not only his wife but also his two sons and their plight is now miserable. It was further contended that these protracted proceedings have added to their miserable. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in view of the above -cited ruling, as said above, the impugned ex -parte order cannot be sustained. In the interest of justice, the parties are directed to appear before the Magistrate on 17th August, 1981. It need hardly be said that having regard to the contention raised by Mr. R.S. Sharma, the Magistrate will take pains to dispose of this case expeditiously, according to law. It is not expected of Surti Lal to adopt any dilatory tactics. If he does so, he shall have to thank himself for any adverse consequence. With these remarks, this revision petition stands disposed of. Revision petition allowed.