DHANRAJ Vs. KISHNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Dhan Raj by the application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, seeks to quash the proceedings under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code (old) initiated by the respondent Smt. Kishni Devi by he; application dated 8.7. 1963 for maintenance of herself and her two children.

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for the decision of this application may be briefly stated as under: On presentation of the application Under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code (old) notice was ordered to be issued to the present applicant Dhan Raj On 17 10 -1968, the non -applicant Smt. Kishni Devi and her counsel Shri Hulash Mal Chopra were not present so the application was dismissed in default. By that date notice was not served on the present applicant. On the next day i.e. on 18 -10 -1968 an application for restoration was filed by Shri Hulash Mal Chopra stating that he was under the impression that there is no case mentioned in his diary of 17. 10 68 so he could not present himself in the Court at the time when the case was called out and he also did not ask Mst. Kishni Devi to remain present on 17.1 0.68 so the application was dismissed in default. It was prayed that the same may kindly be restored. The learned Magistrate fixed 30th October, 1968 for arguments and ordered that the application be put up along with record. On 30th October 1968, the restoration application was allowed and the original application was restored and notice was ordered to be issued to the present applicant. The present applicant did not appear despite service of notice so, ex parte proceedings were ordered to be drawn against the present applicant on 9.12.69 and 12 -1 -70 was fixed for the applicant's evidence. On 12 -1 -70 appearance was put in by Sri Ami Lal Advocate on behalf of the present applicant and thereafter on the application for setting aside the ex -parte order was set aside on 19 -5 -70 and 2 6 -70 was fixed for filing of the reply of the applicant. The present applicant then submitted his reply on the said date and the case was then posted for the applicant's evidence. After recording the evidence and after heating both the parties the learned Magistrate by his order dated 25 -9 -75 allowed the application and ordered the present applicant to pay the amount of maintenance. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance the applicant Smt Kishni Devi preferred the revision petition which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar who by his order dated 30 -3 -1977 allowed the revision petition and revised the quantum of maintenance and further remanded the case back to the learned Magistrate with the direction to fix the date from which the amount of maintenance is to be paid. It was also directed that the learned Magistrate shall consider as to whether the two children have become major or not. The learned Magistrate thereafter proceeded to comply with the directions given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and fixed the date for payment of maintenance from the date of application i.e. 8 -7 -1968 and further found that Mst. Vidhya and Kundan Lal have become major and they would be entitled for the maintenance for six years and eight years respectively w.e.f. 8 -7 -1968 and after the expiry of that period they would not be entitled to any maintenance. The present applicant then went in revision and the learned Additional Sessions by his order dated 4.10 1978 dismissed the revision petition.

(3.) I have heard Shri S.R. Singhi on behalf of the applicant and Shri M.L. Garg on behalf of the non -applicant Smt. Kishni Devi at length.