HARNEK SINGH Vs. DALIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Petitioner's learned Counsel submits that petitioner is an old man. He does not own any land. When his wife-respondent filed a petition under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, the same was proceeded ex-parte against him. On 7. 11. 1996, when case was adjourned to 21. 1. 1997 for recording evidence of the petitioner, husband-petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 7. 11. 1996. Case was adjourned to 13. 2. 1997. As neither petitioner nor his Counsel appeared, this application was also dismissed in default. Then again he filed another application for restoration of the said petition. That was also dismissed vide impugned order.

(2.) PETITIONER 's learned Counsel submits that petitioner is willing to pay interim maintenance to the respondent. He further submits that some time-frame be given to the lower Court to expedite the decision of the petition filed under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) CONSIDERING the facts of the case, revision is allowed. Ex-parte order dated 7. 11. 1996 is set aside. An opportunity be given to the petitioner-husband to file reply to the petition on the condition that he shall pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 450.00 p. m. from the date of petition filed by the respondent-wife. Petitioner is directed to pay the arrears within three months. If he fails to comply with this order, the Trial Court is hereby directed to proceed with the case of the petition filed under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code ex-parte.