- (1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. List has been revised Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not present. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 is present.
(2.) I have perused the impugned or ders and other annexures. It transpires that the application for restoration for setting aside the ex-pane order dated 6-3-1991 which was passed by XIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate fixing a sum of Rs. 300 per month as maintenance al lowance was not decided. During penden cy of the restoration application an ap plication of realisation of maintenance al lowance was moved by Respondent No. 4. On which the order for depositing Rs. 1,000 was passed. The petitioner again had filed an application along with an affidavit dated 13-7-1994 against that order. An order was passed by learned Magistrate directing the petitioner lo deposit Rs. 1,000. That application was dismissed on the ground that he shall pay Rs. 1,000 to I he Respondent No. 4. From the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that without service of notice the ex-parte proceedings were drawn and the order dated 6-3-1991 was In the fact and circumstances of the case this writ petition is allowed. The Judi cial Magistrate is directed to decide the restoration application filed by the petitioner immediately without any fur ther delay.
(3.) PETITIONER is directed to appear regularly on the date fixed. In the event of failure on his part ex-pane proceeding may be drawn and concluded in accordance with law. Petitioner is further directed to pay to the Respondent No. 4 as interim main tenance amount of Rs. 250 from the date of this order. This amount shall be paid to her regularly by ever)' 10th of succeeding months.;