SHER SINGH Vs. RAJWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The order of interim maintenance was passed on 23.11.94 against the petitioner on an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the respondent. The said order is at annexure P-2. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and vide judgment dated 31.3.1995, the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Nakodar allowed the said petition and passed a decree for restitution. The petitioner filed an application under section 127 of the Cr.P.C. (for short, ('the code') which was dismissed on 28.10.1995. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent argued that the said decree is an ex parte decree. However, though on the face of it may appear that it is an ex parte decree but on reading the judgment, it is clear that notice of the petition was issued to the respondent who moved an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of litigation and the petitioner also filed reply to the said application but the respondent did not file the reply of the main petition and ultimately she was proceeded ex parte. It means the the respondent had appeared before the court of learned Additional Senior Sub Judge who passed the decree under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.