Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. None present for the respondents despite service. The present misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dt. 13.12.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Loonkaransar directing ex -parte proceedings to be undertaken against the petitioner and also against the order dt. 01.08.2008 whereby he has ex -parte rejected the application under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application for setting aside the ex -parte proceedings undertaken against him and the date fixed in that application was 24.10.2003. The file was not taken up on that date but was taken up instead on 13.12.2003 and without intimation to the petitioner about the said date, the matter was decided in absentia of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for setting aside of the ex -parte proceedings which has been rejected by the order dt. 01.08.2008. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the respondents on 06.02.1992 on which date, they were aged about 2 years and 4 years respectively. Thus, it is submitted that both the respondents have attained majority in the year 2008 and 2006 respectively. Thus, there could not have been any justification for grant of maintenance to the respondents. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate was wrong in proceeding ex -parte against the petitioner by changing the date for which there was no intimation to the petitioner.
(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the impugned orders.;