ABDUL LATIF Vs. ARZAM BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch, dated 13-4-1986 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mandhar, granting ex-parte monthly allowance of Rs. 200/-to the respondent and her minor daughter. Mr. J.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only one plea in support of the revision petition. It is argued by him that there was no valid service in the eye of law on the respondent and, therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate setting the case ex-parte against the petitioner and all subsequent proceedings were without jurisdiction and a nullity.

(2.) Shorn of details, the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the respondent filed a petition under Section 488 Cr. P.C. in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,Mandhar. The application was filed on 17-2-1984. A perusal of the record reveals that summons were issued to the non-applicant but on the various dates fixed in the case, the summons were received back unserved. The interim order dated 26-6-1984 records that report had been received from the process server that the respondent could not be served whereupon learned counsel for the applicant (respondent herein) informed the court that the petitioner was a government servant and that his fresh address shall be furnished. A direction was accordingly given that summons be served on the fresh address to be furnished by the applicant. Fresh address was furnished but the petitioner could not be served. On the next date i.e. on 29-10-1984 it was directed that the petitioner be served by registered post. On 27-11-1984 the case was set ex-parte against the petitioner and the applicant-respondent was directed to lead ex-parte evidence. The order passed on 27-11-1984 reads thus: (Urdu version illegible) The respondent led evidence and the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 15-7-1985, granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/-p.m. in favour of the wife and the minor child of the petitioner herein. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch. The revision petition failed and was dismissed on 30.4.1986. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had not been served at all as no summons were received by him and that even otherwise service of summons by registered post was not permitted by law and, therefore, the learned trial Magistrate committed an error by directing the petitioner to be set ex-parte and proceeding further with the case. I find there is force in the submission of Mr. J.P. Singh.