R.P.SHUKLA, J. - (1.) RAMAYAN , son of Arjun, resident of village Jiraso, Police Station, Salempur, District Deoria, being aggrieved by the order of the Special Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deoria, dated 17 -12 -1979, allowing a maintenance of Rs. 50/ - per month to opposite -party No. 1 Smt. Tapiya and Rs. 25/ - per month to her daughter and also by the order of the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria, dated 18 -4 -1980 who confirmed the maintenance allowance of Rs. 50/ - per month to Smt. Tapiya and disallowed the claim of maintenance of her daughter, had moved the application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to quash the said orders.
(2.) ON 28 -8 -1984, the application came up for hearing. None appeared on behalf of the applicant. The list was revised, but even then no one appeared. After going through the record, no force was found in the application and the same was dismissed and the stay order was discharged. On 4 -9 -1984, this application was moved on behalf of the applicant praying to recall the said order of dismissal on the ground that the counsel for the applicant could not appear on the date of hearing as the list of 28 -8 -1984 was not printed and only typed copy of the same was pasted on the wall in the morning and he could not notice the case. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel. Even if the list was not printed and the list was pasted in the morning, he ought to have taken notice of it. However, in the interest of natural justice, I proposed to bear him on merits of the case along with his arguments in support of this application, I have heard the parties at some length. Counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that the opposite -party No. 1 did not plead in her application that she was unable to maintain her. The law of civil pleading shall not be rigidly and blindly applied to a case under Section 125, Cr. P. C. If there is no specific pleading regarding inability to maintain, the same can be gathered from the evidence and circumstances of the case. He also contended that applicant Ramayan offered to keep her with him and, therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance. Earlier case of maintenance filed by Smt. Tapiya was compromised as Ramayan agreed to keep her with him, but he continued his illicit relations as alleged by her and again turned her out from his house. That was enough for her to live separately and claim maintenance. I have also gone through the judgments of the courts below and do not find any abuse of the process of court or any injustice requiring this Court to exercise powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Thus, there is nothing on merits that may compel to change may views already expressed on 28 -8 -1984.
(3.) SECTION 362, Cr. P. C. also acts as a bar to alter or review the judgment or final order disposing of the case. Thus, the order dated 28 -8 -1984 dismissing the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. moved by Ramayan stands as it is. The present application is thus rejected with the above observations.;