VIJAY KUMAR Vs. VIJAY LAXMI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C., is directed against the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kangra on 25.8.2014 affirming the orders passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, whereby the respondents had been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3000/ - per month (Rs. 2000/ - for respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1000/ - for respondent No. 2) in proceedings initiated by the respondents under sections 125 Cr.P.C.

(2.) AT the outset, it may be noticed that relationship inter se the parties as husband and wife and respondent No. 2 being their minor child is not in dispute. The petitioner admittedly did not contest the petition and had been proceeded ex parte and respondent No. 1 in her ex parte evidence had proved on record that petitioner despite having sufficient means had neglected and refused to maintain the respondents. She further examined two other witnesses including her father as PW 3 who had duly proved on record all these facts.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his first submission has vehemently argued that petitioner had not been served before the trial court and therefore, the ex parte proceedings against him are bad in law. A perusal of the record would show that initially notice was issued to the petitioner for 17.6.2009 but he could not be served and thereafter despite repeated notices, the petitioner was not served. Ultimately, notice under registered -AD cover was issued on 3.5.2011, which was not received back. The trial Magistrate by invoking the provisions of section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 carried out ex parte proceedings against the petitioner.