- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri J. Habib, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Pal, learned Counsel for respon dent No. 3.
(2.) BY the presentation petitioner has challenged orders dated 20- 1-92 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), 22-1-92 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), 6-10-95 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) and 5-12-96 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition ). Respondent No. 3, Smt. Leelawati, claiming to be the wife of the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance allowance for her self and her minor daughter. The petitioner was served with the notice in the said case and filed written statement wherein he admitted marriage and birth of a child out of their wed-lock but he denied other allegations. He alleged that on 5- 5-86 when the petitioner was working in his field, one Shyam Lal abducted Smt. Leelawati, regarding which he lodged a report on 7-5-86. The petitioner had made several attempts to bring the wife back to her matrimonial home but her parents did not permit her to come and live with the petitioner. A Panchayat was held in which the wife refused to live with the petitioner. Thereafter a notice dated 17- 10-86 was served but to no affect. It was also alleged that the petitioner did not own any agricul tural land and he was doing labour work and was earning Rs. 150 per month. It appears that the wife examined P. W. 1 Ram Das and herself as P. W. 2. The petitioner did not appear and did not produce any evidence. Hence, the case proceeded ex pane and was decided ex pane by judgment and order dated 22-1-92 (Annexure 4 to the petition) whereby maintenance al lowance at the rate of Rs. 250 per month to the wife and Rs. 100 to the minor daughter was awarded. It further transpires from the record that the case was listed for hearing on 20-1-92 on which date the petitioner absented. The trial Court passed order (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) directing it to proceed ex pane. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application lo recall the ex pane order. This application was moved on 20-1-92 itself but it was rejected by order dated 20-1-92 on the ground that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to adduce evidence and he had failed to adduce any evidence. He thus wanted to linger on the case. Thereafter the petitioner filed Crl. Revision No. 501 of 1992 which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 2-4-92 with the observation that the remedy for the applicant lies before the Magistrate concerned under Section 126 (2) Proviso. The court had also observed that in case such an application is moved, the said application shall be disposed of in accordance with law after affording the applicant an opportunity to satisfy the Court whether he had sufficient reason for not appearing before the Court on 20-1-1992. The petitioner did not avail the opportunity of moving an application under Section 126 (2), Cr. P. C. till 24-12-93 and it was only on 24- 12-93 that an application to recall orders dated 20-1-92 and 22-1-92 was moved. This application was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 6-10-95 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition ). Thereafter petitioner filed revision against the order dated 6-10-95 which was dismissed by the revisional court by judgment and order dated 5-12-96 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition ).
(3.) AS already pointed out above, by the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 20-1-92,22-1-92, 6-10- 95 and 5-12-96 on the ground that proper opportunity to adduce evidence was not afforded to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the respon dent contends that the case was pending since 1986 as is evident from the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) and the petitioner had been delaying disposal of the main tenance application on one or the other ground although he was given sufficient opportunity by the Court.;