The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of service by post under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and the legal obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and children under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that financial constraints cannot be accepted as an excuse for non-payment of maintenance.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This petition, under section 482 Cr.P.C., is directed against the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kangra on 25.8.2014 affirming the orders passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, whereby the respondents had been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month (Rs.2000/- for respondent No.1 and Rs.1000/- for respondent No.2) in proceedings initiated by the respondents under sections 125 Cr.P.C.

2. At the outset, it may be noticed that relationship inter se the parties as husband and wife and respondent No. 2 being their minor child is not in dispute. The petitioner admittedly did not contest the petition and had been proceeded exparte and respondent No. 1 in her exparte evidence had proved on record that petitioner despite Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes having sufficient means had neglected and refused to maintain the respondents. She further examined two other witnesses including her father as PW 3 who had duly proved on record all these facts.

3. The petitioner has raised two-fold submissions. Firstly, that he had not been served in the proceedings and secondly that he being unemployed is not in a position to maintain the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his first submission has vehemently argued that petitioner had not been served before the trial court and therefore, the exparte proceedings against him are bad in law. A perusal of the record would show that initially notice was issued to the petitioner for 17.6.2009 but he could not be served and thereafter despite repeated notices, the petitioner was not served. Ultimately, notice under registered-AD cover was issued on 3.5.2011, which was not received back. The trial Magistrate by invoking the provisions of section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 carried out exparte proceedings against the petitioner.

5. It has vehemently been argued that notwithstanding section 27 of General Clauses Act, the petitioner could not be deemed to have been served in view of peculiarity of facts and circumstances of the case. I find no merit in this submission because a perusal of the address given in the postal receipt is the same as given by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the petition.

6. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads thus:-

“27. Meaning of service by post—Where any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression “serve” or either of the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.”

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Madan and Co. vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand (1989) 1 SCC 264, while dealing with the question as to whether the duty of the landlord was complete by sending of notice with reference to the presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act held that once there is proper tender of the demand notice at the correct notice then there is service of demand notice in view of the presumption as per section 27 of the General Clauses Act. It was reported that:-

“6. We are of opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below is correct and should be upheld. It is true that the proviso to Cl. (i) of S. 11(l) and the proviso to S. 12(3) are intended for the protection of the tenant. Nevertheless it will be easy to see that too strict and literal a compliance of their language would be impractical and unworkable. The proviso insists that before any amount of rent can be said to be in arrears, a notice has to be served through post. All that