ORDER Palok Basu, J.
1. The short question involved in this application under Section 482, Cr, P.C. is as to whether the husband applicant Brindaban Chaubey should or should not pay the arrears of maintenance allowance directed to be paid to Smt. Ram Sanwari, wife opposite party, by an ex parte order of the concerned Magistrate dt, 5-12-83. (5-2-83?)
2. The facts are that on 17-6-1981 an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. was moved by Smt. Ram Sanwari against the applicant on whom the summons were directed to issue. It appears that the applicant had. by then gone to the United States of America, regarding his employment. A letter by the Magistrate was sent to the Embassy Office concerned for effecting service on the applicant husband. In the case two other persons, namely, Smt. Malika Devi, sister of the applicant, and Anandi Prasad, her husband, were also arrayed as opposite parties. They filed a revision against the order of the Magistrate issuing process as against them through Sri Rama Shanker Tripathi, an advocate. That revision was allowed by the order of, the Sessions Judge dt. 17-6-1981. Their names were deleted from the array of the parties. The said Sri Rama Shankar Tripathi, Advocate, is the registered power of attorney of the husband applicant. In the Magistrate's Court, the said Anandi Prasad and Smt. Malika Devi had engaged Sri Prabhat Kumar as their advocate who happens to be the son of the said Sri Rama Shankar Tripathi. Between June, 1981 and Nov., 1982 the Magistrate went on taking steps to effect service upon the applicant husband and by his order dt. 23-10-1982 had directed that notice on the husband was sufficient and fixed 6-11-1982 for orders because the husband was absent. Ex parte order against the husband directing payment of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance allowance was passed by the Magistrate on 5-2-1983.
3. On behalf of the applicant an application was moved before the Magistrate on 24-3-1984 for recalling of the ex parte order dt. 5-2-1983. This was done on the strength of a letter dt. 5-3-1984 written by the applicant from America and addressed to his power of attorney (Mukhthar-e-Am) Sri Rama Shankar Tripathi, Advocate. Notice was issued on that application by the Magistrate to the wife opposite party who filed objections and considering the entire matter the Magistrate held that no sufficient cause has been shown for setting aside the ex parte order and rejected the prayer of the husband by a reasoned order dt. 14-10-1985. On behalf of the husband applicant a revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge on 19-9-1986 by his Muktar-e-Am Sri Rama Shankar Tripathi which was opposed by the wife opposite party. By a detailed judgment well supported by reasons, the Sessions Judge dismissed the said revision on 19-9-86. Then on 15-12-1986 this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. was filed in this Court. Notice was issued by a learned single Judge to the opposite party to show cause why the said application be not allowed at the admission stage. In the meantime the parties exchanged their affidavits. When the matter had come up on 29-8-88 a request on behalf of the applicant was made for adjournment of the case so as to enable the applicant's counsel to obtain instructions from his client on the feasibility of maintaining the opposite party (wife). Thereafter the matter was listed on 6-9-1988, 14-10-1988, and 29-10-1988 and ultimately on 2-11-1988 one month and no more was allowed to the learned counsel for the applicant to obtain instructions on the points detailed above.
4. On 14-3-1989 a supplementary affidavit was filed by Sri Rama Shankar Tripathi alleging himself to be the Mukhtar-e-Arn of the applicant. It has been averred in paragraphs 2 to 10 of the said affidavit that as in the meantime the applicant husband has been retired from employment because of some bad health, he is unable to pay any cash amount towards the maintenance allowance. In paragraph 11 it has been stated that the deponent of the affidavit was prepared to deliver plot No. 476 area 1.2.15, plot No. 1575-K area O-13.0 in village Sarawa-gouhan and plot No. 165, area 1.6.15 in village Tulapur Kharagpur, all totalling 3.2.10 bighas of agricultural land in lieu of maintenance allowance payable to the opposite party. It has been averred that the opposite party can maintain herself from out of the income and profit from these agricultural plots.
5. This being the factual background it has to be examined whether or not the applicant is entitled to any relief from this Court in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C.
6. An argument was advanced by Mr. Radhey Shyam Pwivedi that the Magistrate had illegally proceeded to pass the initial ex parte order on the basis of an affidavit filed by the wife opposite party. This was argued on the strength of two decisions reported in the case of Balan Nair v. Bhawani Amma Valsalamma, AIR 1987 Kerala 110 (FB) and Raj Kishore v. State of U.P., 1988 All LJ 368. The other point argued was that the service upon the applicant should not have been taken as sufficient and hence ex parte order ought not to have been passed. For this proposition too reliance was placed on the decision of Balan Nair (supra).
7. Sri, B. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the wife has raised an objection that in view of the facts which have been narrated-above it is not open to the husband to bypass the ex parte order on technicalities particularly when it is not disputed as of fact, that nothing has been done by the applicant to maintain his legally wedded wife, the opposite party. He has further argued that both the Courts below have recorded clear findings of fact that service of notice regarding the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. was sufficient and there was no illegality in the procedure adopted by the Magistrate to proceed with the ex parte hearing. On the strength of these findings it has been argued that the husband applicant need not be permitted to raise an objection about the original order on the ground that the Magistrate had passed the order of maintenance on the materials furnished through an affidavit, because it would not lie in the mouth of the husband to challenge the order on merits once he did not wilfully participate in the proceedings and permitted the matter to go one sided.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and examining the authorities it has to be held that this application lacks merits and has to be dismissed and the two decisions cited have no application to the facts of this case. It is more than apparent that right from 1981 till this date the wife is denied all the privileges that should accrue to a legally wedded wife. The applicant is pursuing remedies through his Mukhtar-e-Am (power of attorney) only when an ex parte order had been passed against him. What prevented the applicant to participate in the proceedings and fight out the case on merits passes one's comprehension. The detailed reasons as found in the order of the Magistrate rejecting the application for recalling the ex parte order has been rightly upheld by the Sessions Judge in revision. In a fit case it may have to be held that an affidavit may not be a substitute for personal examination, but when there was none to cross-examine the wife it was hardly of any consequence as to whether her statement on oath was available before the Magistrate as a statement in person or a statement in writing through an affidavit. No law should be interpreted to the detriment of a person who comes to seek justice and redressal of grievances which emanate only at. the behest of as close a relation as a husband.
9. It may be added that in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr. P.C. the procedure for summons cases is applicable as provided in Section 126, Cr. P.C. In an ex parte proceeding, as in the present case where the service of summons was held sufficient, there remained no question of cross-examining the wife at that stage. Hence, by accepting and referring to the affidavit filed before the Magistrate after he has passed an order directing the proceedings to go ex parte, on the facts of the present case, no illegality can be said to have been committed. The irregularity, if any, is now hardly of any consequence because of the averments made in the supplementary affidavit and findings of the two Courts below which indicate that the husband seeks to undo indirectly what he has failed to achieve directly. Substantial compliance of law having thus been made by the Magistrate while deciding to proceed ex parte, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below should not be interfered with because the said order has got to be enforced in accordance with law.
10. This application being without force is thus hereby dismissed. The interim order is vacated.