Dheeraj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Vikram Singh, J.—The brief facts are that when the applicant did not respond to the process issued by the court, the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed ex-parte against the applicant on 8.8.2011. Against this judgment, an application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant, which was allowed by the court with the condition of depositing 1/3 of the maintenance due. Against this order a revision was preferred being revision No. 40 of 2013, which was dismissed on 26.10.2013. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant has not been heard while passing the order for deposit of 1/3 of the maintenance amount and hence the order be cancelled and the Magistrate may be directed to pass the order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant.

Section 126 Cr.P.C. gives powers to the Magistrate to impose the conditions while setting aside an ex-parte order. The order u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. has also been passed in favour of the present applicant with certain conditions which the Magistrate could have legally imposed. The order has been upheld by the revisional court. It is not disputed that the applicant has not paid any maintenance to his wife. Having considered the facts of the case, the impugned order of the Magistrate does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit. It is hereby dismissed.