Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Deshmukh vs Smt. Harsha Deshmukh on 13 February, 2013
M.Cr.C. No. 13918/2012
13.2.2013
Shri Ashish Trivedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Verma, Advocate for respondents.
Arguments heard.
The petitioner has filed this petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against order dated 31.8.2012 passed in Criminal Revision No. 215/2012 by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal confirming the ex-parte order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. dated 16.1.2012 passed in MJC No. 99/2011 by learned JMFC, Bhopal.
The ex-parte order of maintenance has been passed by learned JMFC after service of notice petitioner/husband by the registered post. The petitioner instead of taking recourse to set aside the ex-parte order of maintenance under Section 126 of the Cr.P.C. by showing good cause, filed revision against impugned order of maintenance, which has been dismissed by learned revisional Court on the ground that petitioner should have taken recourse to provision of Section 126 of the Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the matter of Indramani Jena Vs. Smt. Minjilata Jena and another decided on 2.5.1991 in Criminal Revision No. 192 of 1990, in which it has been held that service of maintenance petition was affected on the petitioner at 9:00 AM, raises reasonable suspicion regarding service and the Magistrate also not found to have recorded its satisfaction in the impugned order that person concerned was willfully avoiding service or willfully neglecting the Court, therefore, order of the Court for proceedings ex-parte against the petitioner was held to be without jurisdiction. In the present case notice to the petitioner has been served by registered post, therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the instant case.
Both the Courts below are justified in passing the impugned order and there is no scope for interference in the impugned orders. The petitioner may file application under Section 126 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order by filing application for condonation of delay or he may file an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for alteration in the allowance. No interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is warranted in the impugned orders. Petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(Anil Sharma) Judge PB