The court established the inherent power of the Criminal Court to grant interim maintenance and restore proceedings for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

1. By this petition, petitioner impugns judgement and order rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Criminal Revision Application No. 139/2000 whereby and whereunder order of restoration of maintenance application bearing Cri. M.A. No. 27/1997 rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmednagar, came to be reversed.

2. The petitioner is wife of respondent No. 1. He filed an application (Cri. M.A. No. 27/1997) for maintenance allowance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application was dismissed on 27th January, 1999 because the petitioner (wife) was found absent. She thereafter filed an application on 08-02-1999 (Cri. M.A. No. 15/1999) for restoration of the application filed under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She asserted that she was suffering from cold and fever since 23rd January, 1999 and was, therefore, absent on the date of hearing. She further asserted that the learned Sessions Judge was misinformed that there was a settlement between the spouses. She filed Medical Certificate of a Medical Practitioner in support of the application and urged to restore the proceedings.

3. The respondent No. 1 resisted the application. The respondent No. 1 (husband) contended that the petitioner/wife deliberately remained absent on the date of hearing. He further contended that the application was not maintainable. He asserted that there was no sufficient reason for the wife to remain absent on date of hearing.

4. The petitioner - wife adduced her evidence in support of the application. As regards the cause of her illness, PW Dr. Markad was also examined. The Medical Practitioner testified that the petitioner was suffering from illness cine 23rd January, 1999 to 30th January, 1999 and was under his treatment. He corroborated Medical Certificate (Exh-15). The learned Judicial Magistrate held that there was no reason to dislodge versions of the petitioner and the Medical Officer. The learned Judicial Magistrate further held that the petitioner proved that there was sufficient cause for her absentia on the date of hearing. The learned Judicial Magistrate was, therefore, pleased to restore the maintenance application.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 1/husband preferred revision application (Cri. Revision No. 139/2000). The learned Sessions Judge held that the order of dismissal could not be recalled and the application could not be restored by the Criminal Court. He held that the proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code are governed by the provisions contained in Chapter-IX of the Criminal Procedure Code and there is no provision to restore the proceedings which came to be dismissed in default. The learned Sessions Judge held that the second application was permissible and the wife could have filed such application. According to view of the learned Sessions Judge, since there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for restoration of the proceedings, the learned Magistrate could not have restored the application filed under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code which was dismissed in default. Hence, the revision application was allowed and the restoration order was set aside. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

6. Heard counsel.

7. Mr. Garud, would submit that the proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure are quasi civil and quasi criminal in nature and, therefore, the Criminal Court has inherent power to restore such proceedings. He would submit that the learned Sessions Judge committed error while taking dogmatic view irrespective of the nature of the proceedings. He pointed out that the proceedings of maintenance application are provided to make available speedy remedy to the wife and, therefore, technical view should not have been taken by the learned Sessions Judge. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Pallod seeks to rely on "Md. Yusuf T. Attarwala v. Mrs. Jumana Yusuf 405 T. Attarwala and others" 3 M.