GHULAM MOHD Vs. RASOOLAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Procedural tangles sometimes complicate issues instead of solving (them). The result is delayed justice if not denial of it. Should rigid resort to procedure be allowed to defeat the very purpose for which it stands laid down? I am afraid-Not-in an era of substantial justice.

(2.) This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur recommending setting aside of ex parte order dated Nov. 20, 1989 passed by the trial Court awarding maintenance allowance of Rs. 340.00 per month to respondent-petitioner. The reason advanced is that the trial Court had not conformed to the procedure laid down in Ss. 73 and 74 of the Criminal P.C. while summoning the petitioner-respondent.

(3.) From the record it appears that the respondent herein made an application invoking S. 488, Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance. The matter was taken cognizance of by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur on 1/03/1986 and summons were issued against the petitioner herein. When repeated summons evoked no response, he was set ex parte vide order dated 20/08/1986. Thereafter, respondent-wife was allowed to adduce evidence in support of her claim culminating in ex parte order dated 7/11/1986 awarding compensation of Rs. 340.00 per month to her.