1. Procedural tangles some times complicate issues instead of solving these. The result is delayed justice if not denied of it. Should rigid resort to procedure be allowed to defeat the very purpose for which it stands laid down? I am afraid-NOT-in an era of substantial justice

2. This is a reference made by the learned Session Judge Udhampur recommending setting aside of exparte order dated November 20,1989 passed by the trial court awarding maintenance allowance of Rs. 340/- per month to respondent petitioner. The reason advanced is that the trial court had not conformed to the procedure laid down in Sections 73 and 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while summoning the petitioner-respondent.

3. From the record it appears that the respondent herein made an application invoking section 488 Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance. The matter was taken cognizance of by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur on March 1,1981 and summons were issued against the petitioner herein. When repeated summons evoked no response, he was set exparte vide order dated August 20,1986. Thereafter, respondent-wife was allowed to adduce evidence in support of her claim culminating in exparte order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document