RAMANDIP KAUR MINOR Vs. SARWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Petitioners' learned Counsel submits that petitioner-wife filed a petition under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance for herself as well as for her minor son. Husband-respondent was served. He filed the reply and attended the hearing on number of dates but subsequently on one day proxy Counsel appeared for him and on the adjourned date even he did not appear. Respondent thereafter never attended the hearing and ultimately her petition filed under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code was allowed vide order Annexure P3. Petitioners are granted maintenance @ Rs. 800.00 p. m. ; Rs. 300.00 for the child and Rs. 500.00 for the wife.

(2.) RESPONDENT filed revision against the order, Annexure P3, in the High Court which was withdrawn vide order Annexure P4 on 22. 2. 1994. According to the learned Counsel, the order Annexure P3 had attained finality but despite this fact, the lower Court while passing the impugned order has set aside the ex-parte order Annexure P3 dated 12. 12. 1992.

(3.) RESPONDENT 's learned Counsel submitted that order Annexure P3 was passed ex-parte. Thereafter, respondent submitted an application under Section 126, Criminal Procedure Code. In the meantime, respondent rushed to the High Court and filed revision as well but as there is specific provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to get relief under Section 126, Criminal Procedure Code he withdrew his revision vide order Annexure P4 dated 22. 2. 1994. Thereafter, as he could prove sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the case under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code was taken up by the lower Court, the trial Magistrate on being satisfied that there is sufficient cause for non-appearance, passed the impugned order and has set aside order Annexure P3. He also contends that respondent is continuously paying maintenance @ Rs. 800.00 p. m. to the petitioners. Maintenance has been paid till February, 1998.