JUDGMENT

M. Wahajuddin, J. The applicant has come forward with a prayer that the order of the Magistrate as well as the order of the revisional court both, rejecting the applicants application for setting aside ex parte order dated 23.10.1982 be quashed. It would appear that the applicant was allowed maintenance, which order also became final. Later an application was preferred under Section 127 Cr. P.C. for disentitling the applicant for maintenance amount due to changed circumstances, alleging that the applicant has re-married. It would further appear that the applicant prayed for adjournment, which was refused and then the application under Section 177 Cr. P.C .was allowed ex parte.

2. In the present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. I am simply concerned with the question whether the, Magistrate himself or the revisional court could have set aside the ex. parte order as such. The, applicant could well file a revision from the main order modifying or recalling the earlier of maintenance, on the ground of having teen denied an opportunity to lead evidence, This, however, was not done. So, I am at present in this .application confined to only one question whether there is any