The inherent powers of the court cannot be exercised if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party and the same should also not be exercised as against express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

( 1 ) THIS petition has been brought u/s 401 read with S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( the Code ) seeking quashment of the order dt. 25. 1. 85 passed by Ms. Deepa Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, by whicshe allowed the petition moved by respondent No. 1 u/s 125 of the Code and awarded maintenance to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. This was an ex-parte order granting maintenance.

( 2 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order pleading that no proper service of the notice issued u/s 125 r. w. S. 126 of the Code had been effected on the petitioner and the mode of service adopted by the M. M. by issuance of registered notices and ultimately publication of a notice in a newspaper was not in consonance with the procedure for effecting service envisaged in the provisions of the Code and thus, on the face of it the ex-parte order made against the petitioner was illegal. He has also urged that the newspaper in which the publication had been effected was an unknown newspaper and had no circulation in Ludhiana where the petitioner is admittedly residing and even no copy of the newspaper had been sent at the address of the petitioner as is required by law. He has further urged that the petitioner had come to know about the ex-parte order only in the last week of May 1988 through his brother-in-law when non-bailable warrants of arrest of the petitioner and warrants of attachment of his moveables were sought to be executed and thus, the petitioner could not move the M. M. u/s 126 of the Code for setting aside of the ex-parte order inasmuch as limitation for filing such an application had already expired.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for respondents has on the other hand, contended that no resort to inherent power of this court can be made till the petitioner bad exhausted his legal remedies available u/s 126 and u/s 401 of the Code. He has also urged that even revisional powers of the court cannot be exercised till the petitioner had taken benefit of remedy available u/s 126 of the Code itself. On merits, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has contended that despite repeated efforts made by the learned Magistrate to effect service of notice on the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Code the service could not be effected as the petitioner at one time refused to accept the notice and on the other occasion had avoided to accept the notice and thus, as an extra caution the learned Magistrate had sent repeated registered notices to the petitioner which the petitioner avoided to receive and ultimately service by publication was also effected and thus, in the present case the M. M. has rightly proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner who had deliberately avoided to appear in the proceedings.

( 4 ) THE first question to be decided in the present matter is whether the petition u/s 482 of the Code is maintainable or not against the impugned order. Sec. 126 (2) proviso clearly lays down that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom on order lor payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the court the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex-parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper.

( 5 ) IN State v. Ku. Tukkanna etc. , 1984 Rajdhani L. R. 523, a similar question came up for consideration. A Single Judge of this Court clearly held that it is now too well settled that inherent powers of the court have to be very sparingly exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice and they cannot be invoked if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party and the same should also not be exerci