TARANJOT KAUR Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed against the orders of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh dated May, 1993, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, claiming maintenance against her father. According to the petitioner, who is represented by her mother, she is only aged about 3 years and her father has refused to maintain her mother and the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class has ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as ad interim maintenance and the father is evading payment and the matter was finally posted for hearing before the learned Magistrate on May 21, 1993 but the mother of the petitioner wrongly noted June 21, 1993 as the date and, therefore, she was not present in Court on May 21, 1993 and on that date, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class dismissed the petition for default. It has, therefore, been prayed that the order of dismissal dated May 21, 1993 be set aside.

(2.) THE respondent-father though served through notice, did not appear. The record shows that several adjournments had been granted to the respondent for payment of the ad interim maintenance but he failed to pay the same. According to the petitioner, the matter was adjourned several times, i.e. on 14.8.1992, 7.9.1992, 30.9.1992, 19.11.1992, 14.1.1993, 15.3.1993, 26.4.1993, 28.4.1993 and 10.5.1993, on 7.9.1992, 14.1.1993 and 15.3.1993, the learned Presiding Officer of the Court was on leave and then transferred. The matter was adjourned to 10.5.1993 and from 10.5.1993 it had been adjourned to 21.5.1993. But according to the petitioner's mother who had gone to appear in the Court on 10.5.1993, none was sitting in the Court and the persons sitting outside the Court told her that the Presiding Officer has not taken charge on his transfer and that she was told by the Clerk of her Advocate that the case had been adjourned to 21.6.1993. Therefore, she went to the Court on 21.6.1993 when she was told that the case was dismissed for default on 21.5.1993. In fact, the matter had been adjourned several times for depositing ad interim maintenance by the respondent and the respondent has not deposited the amount even on 21.5.1993. Therefore, the order of dismissal of the application for default is not correct. Accordingly, I allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, dismissing the application for default and direct the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh to restore the application on its original number and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Petition allowed.