JUDGMENT
Gulab Chand Gupta, J.
1. The applicant feels aggrieved by the order dated 2.3 89 passed by Sessions Judge Chhindwara in Cr. Appeal No. 31 of 1989 confirming the order of Judicial Magistrate Clase 1 Chhindwara dated 27.2-89 in Misc. Cr. Case No. 215/88 awarding maintenance to the non-applicant and has approached this Court by filing this application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the same.
2. There appears to be no dispute at this stage that the parties were married husband and wife. The non-applicant filed an application Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Chhindwara alleging neglect and refusal of the applicant to maintain her and therefore prayed for an order directing the applicant to pay maintenance. It appears that inspite of efforts and service of notice, the applicant remained ex parte and ultimately the learned Magistrate passed order dated 1.9.83 granting the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. The applicant faced with the aforesaid order filed an application on 10.6.84 Under Section 126(2) Cr. P.C. alleging that he did not have any notice of the proceedings and therefore ex parte order against him was illegal. This was opposed by the non-applicant. The learned Magistrate, on consideration of evidence adduced by the parties, held that notices were sent to him by registered post thrice and the applicant refused to accept those notices. The learned Magistrate therefore found no justification to set aside the ex parte order. The applicant preferred a revision against the same, but the learned Sessions Judge found no justification for interference and dismissed the same. According to the learned Sessions Judge, there was nothing illegal in serving notice on the applicant by registered post. It is this order which is impugned in this application.
3. There appears to be no dispute that the notices were sent to the applicant not only by registered post but also by normal process. It has to be assumed for the purpose of this application that the applicant refused to accept those notices. Question for consideration is whether it introduces any illegality in the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate. In Mst. Jagir Kaur and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1983 SC 1521 and Nandlal Mishra v. Kanhaiya Lal Misra, AIR 1960 SC 882 it was held that the proceedings under this section are in the nature of civil proceedings, even though governed by the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. This Court in Gulam Nabi v. Raisa Bi 1983 MPWN 396 has held that these proceedings are quasi-civil and quasi-criminal. In 1986 M.P. L.N. 581 Radhamani v. Sonu Balram. It was further clarified that the Court dealing with such an application is not required to be too rigid, dogmatic, and technical in its approach. The approach should be pragmatic. It has also been clarified more than once that the proceedings are summary in nature. In view of this preponderance of judicial opinion, it is difficult to accept the submission that unless personal service of notice is effected on the applicant in accordance with Sections 62 and 64 Cr. P.C., the service would not be recognized.
4. Then Section 62(2) Cr. P.C. itself indicates that the rule of serving summons personally on the person summoned is to be followed if praticable. In other words, the rule itself indicates that substituted service can be resorted to if there be some practical difficulty in serving summons personally. Section 64 Cr. P.C. provides for substituted service in cases where the person summoned cannot, by exercise of due diligence, be found. In the instant case, the summons were also sent through police and could not be served. In such a situation, resort to substituted service will not be illegal. Section 69 Cr. P.C. specifically provides that the Court issuing the summons may, in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of such summons, direct a copy of the summons to be sent by a registered post. In the presence of this provision, it would be unreasonable to submit that the mode of service of summons adopted by the Magistrate suffers from any patent illegality. Since the applicant has refused to accept the summons sent by post, he has to blame himself.
There is no substance in the petition on which fails and is dismissed.