The husband in a proceeding under Sec. 488 Cr. P.C. obtained this Rule against the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting his prayer made under the proviso to Sec. 488(6) of the Code for setting aside an ex parte order for payment of a maintenance allowance of Rs. 50/- per month to his wife.

2. The materials on record show that the petitioner was served with notice of his wife's application under Sec. 488 Cr. P.C. and that he also appeared in court and filed his written statement, but thereafter did not appear. The proceeding ended in an ex parte order directing payment of maintenance allowance as stated above. Six months thereafter the petitioner appeared in court and applied under the proviso to Sec. 488(6) for setting aside the ex parte order. The learned Magistrate refused to entertain the prayer on the ground of limitation.

3. The learned Advocate appearing in support of the petitioner contends that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the case and that the learned Magistrate fell into an error in finding that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply and that the application was barred by limitation.

4. Sec. 488(6) of the Code requires that evidence in connecti