ORDER
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.
1. This criminal revision, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the impugned order dated 26.8.2002 whereby learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad by his order dated 26.8.2002, came to a finding that order dated 7.8.2000 passed in miscellaneous case No. 41/98 is still in force.
2. Facts briefly stated are that opposite party No. 1 filed a miscellaneous case before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for allowing her maintenance when O.P. did not appear inspite of best efforts by this Court, then an ex-parte order was passed allowing her Rs. 500/- (five hundred) as maintenance allowance. The ex-parte order was passed in the case bearing miscellaneous case No. 41/98 was ultimately set aside by High Court in revision No. 552/2002 and opposite party of miscellaneous case No. 41/98, who had come in revision before High Court, was directed to appear within 15 days from the date of order (Annexure-1) but opposite party of miscellaneous case No. 41/98 could not appear due to his having been undergoing treatment at Vellore. Again when O.P. did not appear, then again an ex-parte order was passed against O.P./revisionist, who is opposite party in miscellaneous case No. 41/98 and then he filed a petition under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte order. Thereafter both sides led evidence and after considering the evidence–both oral and documentary–Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad passed impugned order dated 26.8.2002 holding that ex-parte order passed on 7.8.2000 is still in force and that does not require any interference.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-revisionist submitted that this is a peculiar order because order dated 7.8.2000 has been set aside and that order is now no longer in force but instead of giving a separate finding, learned Principal Judge, Family Court. Dhanbad has come to
a peculiar finding and held that order 7.8.2000 is still in force.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that petitioner-revisionist is harassing opposite party by purposely avoiding appearance in time in Court and thereafter by filing case and revision, he got ex-parte order set aside.
5. In my opinion, learned Principal Judge committed an error of law in coming to a finding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 126, Cr PC and after hearing the parties, set aside the ex-parte order passed under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. Provision of Section 126, Cr PC clearly lays down that when a case filed under Section 126, Cr PC for maintenance and if the Magistrate (Principal Judge) is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, willfully avoiding service or willfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate (Principal Judge) may proceed to hear and determine the case ex-parte and an order so made, may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including the terms as to payment of cost to the opposite parties as the Magistrate (Principal Judge) may think just and proper. On sufficient cause being shown to the Court about reasons of non-appearance of the O.P. then he has right to entertain the application, record evidence and thereafter, if he finds reason sufficient for non-appearance of the O.P. in the miscellaneous case instituted under Section 125, Cr.PC, then he will set aside the ex-parte order. The provision of Section 126, Cr PC are quoted herein below which will make the position clear.
“126. Procedure.–(1) Proceedings
under Section 125 may be taken against
any person in any district–
(a) where he is, or
(b) where he or his wife resides, or
(c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child.
(2) All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the
person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons cases :
Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex-parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper.
(3) The Court in dealing with application under Section 125 shall have power to make such order as to costs may be just.”
6. From perusal of proviso to Section 126, Cr PC, it is clear that the Court, who decides the maintenance matter, will also decide a petition filed under proviso to Section 126, Cr PC and pass an appropriate order. In the instant case also, the learned Principal Judge has done the same thing and there is no illegality in the order of the Principal Judge by which he set aside ex-parte order. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the impugned order dated 26.8.2002 suffers from illegality and that has to be set aside.
7. In the result, this revision application is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.8.2002 is hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad with a direction that he will anyhow dispose of the case within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner will immediately appear before the Family Court, Dhanbad. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad will dispose of the matter after hearing both the sides within the aforesaid period.
8. With the aforesaid observation, this revision application is disposed off.