- (1.) B. P. Singh, J. Rajendra Kumar Pandey has filed this application for revision against the judgment and order dated 8. 1. 92 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Revision No 98 of 1991 Sml. Rajendri Devi v. Rajendra Kumar Pandey.
(2.) AN application under Section 125 Cr. P. C was moved by the applicant Sou. Rajendra Devi against opposite party No. 2, Rajendra Kumar Pandey, claiming that she was the wife of opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 was not maintaining her. It appears that the summons of the case were served upon Rajendra Kumar Pendey by publication. Rajendra Kumar Pandey did not put in appearance and in ex-pane proceedings against him learned IIIrd A. C. J. M. , Kanpur Dehat allowed the main tenance application ex-parte. Rajendra Kumar Pendey applied before the IIIrd A. C. J. M. Kanpur Dehat for setting aside the ex-parte order on the ground that the summons were not served upon him. After hearing both the parties learned A. C. J. M. allowed the application of Rajendra Kumar Pendey on a payment of Rs. 350.- as costs.
(3.) SMT. Rajendri Devi went in revision against the said order of the A. C. J. M. dated 20. 9. 91 and her revision application Criminal Revision No. 98 of 1991 SMT. Rajendra Devi v. Rajendra Kumar was allowed by the Vllth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat on 8. 1. 92. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the revisional Court, Rajendra Kumar Pendey has come in revision. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. It is not disputed that the summons of the case in question were served upon the husband of the opposite party No. 2 by way of publication in a newspaper. Learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision application of the wife on the ground that the application for setting aside the ex-parte order was moved by the husband under Section 125 Cr. P. C. and not under Section 126 Cr. P. C. In my opinion Learned Sessions Judge has taken too technial view of the matter and the failure on the part of the husband to mention Section 125 in place of Sectionl26 Cr. P. C. should not have weighed with the Sessions Judge. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C. are of summary nature and are intended to provide speedy relief to the wife but in the said proceedings the husband has a right to be heard and his right of being heard should not be taken away simply because his Counsel has committed a mistake of mentioning Section 125 Cr. P. C. on the application for setting aside the ex-parte order in place of Section 126 Cr. P. C.;