The Magistrate has the inherent power to restore an execution application dismissed in default on sufficient cause being shown by the petitioner in proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC.

J. S. Sekhon, J. - The sole controversy in this criminal revision petition directed against the order of Shri M. S. Luna. Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, is whether the trial Court can restore the execution application of an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) which was dismissed in default on sufficient grounds.

2. In brief, the facts are that Mst. Kamla Devi wife was granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month while her two minor daughters, Neelam and Guddi, were granted maintenance allowances at the rate of Rs. 50/- each from the date of application i. e. 23-9-1980, vide order dated 25-10-1982 passed by Shri T. R. Bansal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura. On the failure of the husband to pay the maintenance allowance, Mst. Kamla Devi, petitioner, filed first execution application on 19-10-1983 claiming arrears of maintenance allowance with effect from 23-9-1980 to 23.10.1983. This application was dismissed in default on 19-5-1984. Subsequently on 4-8-1984, this application was restored by the learned Judicial Magistrate. During the pendency of these proceedings, she also filed another execution application dated 19-5-1984 for realising the arrears of maintenance allowance from 1.3.1984 to 31-3-1985. The learned Judicial Magistrate disposed of both these applications vide his order dated 25-3-1987 and the husband was sentenced to undergo 12 months imprisonment subject to the condition that he shall be released if he makes the payment of the amount due sooner. It was further held that the amount recoverable from him was Rs. 10,000/-. Being aggrieved against the said order of the trial Court, the husband went in revision petition which was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Patiala, vide impugned order by holding that there being no provision in the Code for restoration of the execution application dismissed in default, the order of the Judicial Magistrate to that extent was not justifiable. However, the imprisonment of the husband for the arrears of maintenance allowance claimed vide second execution application dated 29-3-1985 was upheld. The wife being aggrieved against the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has come up in this criminal revision before this Court. During the pendency of this revision petition, the husband has paid the arrears of maintenance allowance adjudged in second execution application.

3. I have heard Shri Gur Rattanpal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Jagmohan Singh, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the record.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by relying upon the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Mst. Gurnam Kaur, 1966 Current Law Journal 129, as well as of the Supreme Court in Major General A.S. Gaurava and another v. S.N. Thakar and another (1986 Criminal Appeals Reporter (Supreme Court) (17: 1987(1) CLR 408] came to the conclusion that there being no provision for restoration of the execution application of the order of maintenance passed under Section 125 of the Code dismissed in default, the above referred order of the executing Court dated 4.8.1984 restoring the execution application was not justifiable. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Smt. Prema Jain v. Sudhir Kumar Jain, 1980 Marriage Law Journal 17. to the effect that application dismissed in default under Section 125 of the Code could be restored being an administrative order was not followed in view of the binding nature of the above referred decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court.

5. There is absolutely no doubt that in Chapter 9 of the Code specific provisions had been enacted by the Legislature in the shape of Sections 125 to 128 in order to provide expeditious remedy of maintenance allowance to the destitute wives, children and parents of the person concerned. In a way it can be well said that maintena