This is a revision by the husband in proceedings under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

2. The material facts giving rise to this revision are that on the basis of an application filed by opposite party Srimati Parbati, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khair, Aligarh passed an ex parte order directing the applicant to pay Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance allowance to her. This order the learned Magistrate apparently passed under the proviso to Section 488(6) of the Code. On the 26th of March, 1970, an application was made by the applicant before the learned Magistrate praying that the ex parte order dated 16th October, 1969, be set aside, the case restored to its original number and decided after giving the applicant an opportunity of contesting the claim put forfard by opposite party No. 2. This application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate for default of appearance of the applicant on 8th June, 1970. On the same date the applicant filed a second application praying for the same relief. In the second application it was disclosed that the earlier one had been dismissed by the learned Magistrate for default of the applicant. The second application was also dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 18th July, 1970. It was held by the learned Magistrate that a perusal of the file revealed that every effort had been made to inform the applicant about the case but he had all along evaded the service of notice by registered letters. The learned Magistrate took into account the fact that publication of notice of the case against the applicant had also been made in two newspapers having circulation in Delhi as well as in district Aligarh. It was held by the learned Magistrate that he presumed that sufficient service was made of on the applicant in respect of the case and he consequently could not take the plea that he was not informed of the case. It was further held by the learned Magistrate that the application for restoration had been made after three months of the order and therefore it had become time-barred. In the result, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the application.

The applicant went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh. The learned Sessions Judge relied upon Section 488(6) of the Code and held that the application dated 8th of June, 1970, not having been made within three months of the order dated 16th October, 1969, was barred by limitation. It was held by the learned Sessions Judge that the dismissal of the application dated 8th June, 1970, by the learned Magistrate was legally correct.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has invited my attention to the fact that in the application made by the opposite party for award of maintenance allowance, it had clearly been averred by her that the applicant was a Government servant employed in the office mentioned in the application itself, at Delhi. He submitted that no attempt had been made to effect service on the applicant by taking recourse to the procedure prescribed by Section 72 of the Code or in any other manner provided by Chapter VI of the Code. It was submitted that under the Code, there is no provision for effecting service on a party or a witness in any manner other than that provided by Chapter VI of the Code. It was submitted that the sending of a registered letter by post to the applicant at an address in Delhi, which was returned undelivered, was no service on the applicant in the eye of law. He went on to submit that even publication in the newspapers having circulation at Aligarh and Delhi could not be considered to be service of notice of the case on the applicant in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. It was urged that since no attempt had been made to serve the applicant by the procedure provided by law, the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge were both unjustified in coming to the conclusion that the applicant had b