High Court Of Calcutta
N. G. Chaudhuri
RINA GANGULY - Appellant
Versus
RASHBEHARI GANGULY - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 1264 of 1982
Decided On : 07/20/1983
MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 126 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - LIMITATION - SETTING ASIDE EX PARTE ORDER - GOOD CAUSE - WILFUL AVOIDANCE OF SERVICE - WILFUL NEGLECT TO ATTEND COURT - SERVICE OF NOTICE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 126(2) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE - CONDONATION OF DELAY - SECTION 5 LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE - SECTION 27 GENERAL CLAUSES ACT - MAINTENANCE PROCEEDING - EX PARTE ORDER - SETTING ASIDE - LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING SETTING ASIDE OF EX PARTE ORDERS.
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance, alleging that she was married to the opposite party under the Special Marriages Act and that he had left her without making any arrangements for her maintenance. The Magistrate passed an ex parte order for maintenance in her favor. The husband then filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, claiming that he had not received notice of the proceedings. The Magistrate set aside the ex parte order, holding that there was a serious doubt regarding service of notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the husband's application was time-barred, as it was filed more than three months after the date of the ex parte order. The court also held that the husband had not shown good cause for setting aside the ex parte order, as he had not provided any evidence that he had wilfully avoided service or wilfully neglected to attend court.
Issues: 1. Whether the husband's application to set aside the ex parte order was time-barred? 2. Whether the husband had shown good cause for setting aside the ex parte order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the husband's application was time-barred, as it was filed more than three months after the date of the ex parte order. The court noted that the proviso to Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly provides that an ex parte order may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof. 2. The court held that the husband had not shown good cause for setting aside the ex parte order, as he had not provided any evidence that he had wilfully avoided service or wilfully neglected to attend court. The court noted that the husband had not deposed before the Magistrate that the process server did not tender to him the notice of the case or that the postal peon did not offer to him the registered covers addressed to him.
Final Decision: The court allowed the wife's revision petition and set aside the Magistrate's order setting aside the ex parte order for maintenance.
( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the wife in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code is directed against order dated 13-2-82 passed in Misc. Case 1126 of 1980 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Howrah. By the order impugned the learned Magistrate has set aside the ex parte order for maintenance, passed in favour of the wife on the application of the opposite party husband under Section 126 of the Code.
( 2 ) ALLEGING that marriage between her and opposite party had taken place on 18-9-79 under the Special Marriages Act and the couple lived in the rented premises of the opposite party at 7/1 Girish Banerjee Lane, P. S. Sibpur for sometime, the petitioner wife filed an application under section 125 Cr. P. C. in the Court of S. D. J. M. Howrah on, 23-9-80. Further she alleged that on 9- 2-80 the husband had left her alone in the above noted matrimonial home without making any arrangement for her maintenance and eventually refused to maintain her. She alleged that opposite party was an Assistant Engineer under the C. M. D. A. and had his office at Sech Bhavan, Salt Lake, Calcutta and was getting a salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. In the application the father's name of the opposite party was given as late Bhabatosh Ganguly and his residential address was given as Village Andul Mohuri (Kulya) near Mohuri Cotton Mill, P. 5. Jagacha, District - Howrah and his office address as Executive Engineer, C. M. D. A. , Salt Lake, Sech Bhavans 1st, floor, Calcutta - 64. The service returned dated 29-10-80 indicates that the opposite party expressed his reluctance to accept copy of the petition when the same was tendered to him at his residence and the notice was hung up on the front door of his residence. Still the learned Magistrate was cautious and directed service of notice afresh under registered post with acknowledgment due. The application, etc. , were sent to the two addresses of the opposite party noted above under registered post. The cover addressed to the opposite partys residence came back with peon's endorsement Refused, dated 12-1-81; and the other cover addressed to the opposite party at his office came back with the peons endoresement Not claimed dated 20-1-81. Thereafter on 17-3-81 the ex-parte order for maintenance of the wife was passed, allowing the wife maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from the date of application.
( 3 ) THEREAFTER the wife petitioner made various attempts to execute the order by issue of distress warrant. Inspite of the learned Magistrate's order the police did not take any interest in the matter. By order dated 27-7-81 the learned Magistrate ordered a copy of his order to be sent to S. P. Howrah. The order dated 14-9-81 passed by the Magistrate indicates that O. C. Jagacha P. S. had come to the Court in connection with another case and the learned Magistrate drew his attention to the police inaction in the matter of service of D. S. in this case and the O. C. gave him an assurance that the matter would be looked into. Nothing was done and on 1-10. 81 fresh D. W. was issued to O. C. Jagacha P. S. From the report dated 15-11. 81 of Anil Chatterjee, A. S. I. attached to Jagacha P. S. it transpired that he had been to village Puilla near Mohuri Cotton Mill P. S. Jagacha found one Rashbehari Ganguly son of late Sachin Ganguly but he could not trace out Rashbehari Ganguly son of late Bhabatosh Ganguly of village Kuilla. In the report he indicated that possibly there were mistakes in the warrant regarding the fathers name, the name of the village of the opp. party. The opposite part filed a petition in the court below on 2. 12. 81 praying for setting the ex parte order passed on 17-3-81. The notable features of this petition are firstly the petition does not contain any verification with the signature of the opposite party, nor is it supported by any affidavit; secondly it is admitted that opposite
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.