The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice under S. 125 (3) should be served in the manner provided under the Cr. P. C. and any irregularity in the context of the notice will vitiate the proceedings.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this case has challenged the proceedings in C. Misc. No. 3/87 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC for short), Nelamangala and praying for quashing the same. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated are as under :

( 2 ) PETITIONER Shivanna is the husband of respondent Bhadramma. In C. Misc. No. 5/85, the JMFC, Nelamangala, by his order dated 23-9-1986 directed the instant petitioner to pay maintenance to Smt. Bhadramma at the rate of Rs. 75/- p. m. and an amount of Rs. 150/- p. m. to the child born out of Bhadramma. Since the amount was not paid by the instant petitioner as ordered by the learned JMFC, respondent Bhadramma filed an application before the JMFC under S. 125 (3), Cr. P. C. for the recovery of the amount. The learned JMFC, by his order dated 23-3-1988, directed the issue of salary attachment warrant against the instant petitioner. Aggrieved by this order passed by the JMFC, the instant petitioner has approached this Court by this petition, challenging the entire proceedings leading to the said order.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri R. G. Hegde, counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Manjula Devi, counsel for respondent.

( 4 ) SRI Hegde petitioner's counsel has placed two points for the consideration of the Court. The first point is that the certified copy of the order passed by the JMFC in C. Misc. No. 5/85 was not supplied to the instant petitioner at all, with the result, it was not possible for the instant petitioner to have taken any defence in the course of the proceedings filed by the instant respondent under S. 125 (3), Cr. P. C. The second point that is pressed into service is that notice was not all given to the petitioner before passing the order in the way and manner as has been done by the learned JMFC. Pressing into service these two contentions, petitioner's counsel contended that the order passed by the lower Court directing the issue of salary attachment and the entire proceeding as such are liable to be set at naught.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, Smt. Manjula Devi, submitted to the Court that the petitioner has challenged only the order dated 23-3-1988, without challenging the orders passed by the JMFC on earlier occasions. Smt. Manjula Devi also brought to the notice of the Court that the instant petitioner was, in fact, arrested on 14-9-1987 and that he was brought before the Court and he knew that the matter was actually posted before the Court for payment of the amount. In this connection, the relevant portion of the order sheet produced in this case has been brought to my notice. It is also pointed out by the respondent's counsel that the instant petitioner had written a letter which is seen at page 36 of the file to the effect that he will actually appear on 8-9-1987. In this view of the matter, learned counsel contended that it is too late in the day for the petitioner to contend before the Court that he had no knowledge of the proceedings before the learned JMFC. Learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the registered notice having been sent to the instant petitioner. Pressing into service these contentions, respondent's counsel submitted to the Court that the order passed by the lower Court deserves to be confirmed and the present petition is liable to be rejected.

( 6 ) IT is not disputed that an order for maintenance was passed under S. 125 (1), Cr. P. C. , against the instant petitioner. It is further seen that the instant respondent sought to execute the said order in C. Misc. No. 3/87. It is also seen from the certified copy of the order sheet in C. Misc. No. 3/87, produced before this Court, that he learned JMFC directed the issue of notice to respondent, by 4-3-1987. It appears that he was not served because, the order sheet dated 4-3-1987 directs steps to be taken. The order sheet dated 16-3-1987 discloses that the case was adjourned to 24-3-1987. The order sheet dated 24-3-1987 goes to show th