DAVE, J. - (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) IT is an unfortunate case where the parties are contesting about the maintenance money for the children, who have been deprived of the affection of the Father because of mal-adjustment between husband and wife making them virtually orphans. The dispute before us arises out of the order, which was passed by the family Court on 27. 07. 1990. The only ground of challenge of the order is that service was not effected on the petitioner in accordance with law. Notices were issued to the petitioner Irshaduddin. This was issued by the Court on 23. 08. 1989 for appearance on 10th Nov. , 89. The summons were marked to one Hanuman Sahai for service. Some report was sought to be made, which was struck off earlier mentioning that the petitioner has vacated the premises but thereafter the process server, Bhanwar Lal recorded that the party refused to accept the summon and, therefore, it is pasted on the house. Signatures of two witnesses were obtained and was returned to the Court. This Court in Abdul Hanif vs. Anis Fatima (1) has held that while effecting the service under Sec. 125 Cr. P. C. , provisions of Sec. 68 cannot be ignored. Service has to be effected in the manner provided under Sec. 62 and proof of service is to be given as required by law. The copy of the notices, which have been produced before Us does not even indicate that at any time, after being marked to Hanuman Sahai, it was ever marked to Bhanwarlal. Neither the date is mentioned nor the name has been specified in the report properly. In our opinion, it was not a proper servce and the court ought not to have proceeded to decide the case ex-parte. It is true that a remedy was available to the petitioner for getting the ex-parte order set aside under the provisions of Sec. 126 (2) Cr. P. C. within three months but the same not having done, the jurisdiction of this Court is not precluded more particularly when the appellant had moved an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and the delay is explained and limitation has been counted from the date of knowledge of the order. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Harish Chandra vs. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer and another (2) and the various High Courts subsequently have held that the period of limitation would run from the date of knowledge in case it is satisfactorily explained. In our opinion, this is a fit case where the order dated 27. 7. 91 should be set aside and the case be remanded to the Family Court, Jaipur for deciding after giving proper opportunity to the appellant. We are , however, of the opinion that interim maintenance should be fixed till the matter is finally disposed of. In our opinion, a sum of Rs. 250/- per head p. m. i. e. total Rs, 500/- p. m. shall be adequate amount as maintenance for payment till the disposal of the application for maintenance by the Family Court. This maintenance is for Ku. Shabnam and Ku. Jar fashee. We may also observe here that Rs. 3000/- has been paid to Shahjahan Begam as part of arrears according to the order of maintenance given by the Court. The iterim maintenance shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 500/- w. e. f. 1. 10. 1991. Regarding the past arrears, it is directed that the trial Court while deciding the quantum of maintenance, shall adjust the payment of Rs. 3000/-, which has already been paid coupled with Rs. 250/-p. m. which, in addition to aforesaid maintenance, is directed to be paid as maintenance to respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Thus, henceforth, i. e. with effect from 1. 10. 1991, the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 750/- month by month payable by 10th of every month. If the respondent No. 1 opens an account in a Bank, it is open to the appellant to deposit the amount in the Bank account, the number of which shall be furnished to the appellant. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 21. 10. 91.
(3.) COPY of this order shall be sent to the Family Court, Jaipur immediately. The petition is disposed of as aforesaid. .;