Ranjit Singh, Advocate vs Amarjit Kaur

Pritpal Singh, J.

The impugned exparte order dated April 8, 1982 of the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Ajnala, granting maintenance to the respondent Amarjit Kaur against her husband Ranjit ''Singh petitioner is questioned in this criminal revision by the latter.

Amarjit Kaur filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from her husband Ranjit Singh. Notice or the application was served upon Ranjit Singh by registered post and by publication in newspaper. As he failed to appear before the Court on the date fixed exparte proceeding were taken against him and eventually the impugned exparte order was passed by the trial Court directing him to pay maintenance to Amarjit Kaur. This exparte order has been challenged by Ranjit Singh on the ground that he was not properly served in accordance with law and he has consequently prayed that the impugned exparte order being bad in law should be quashed.

It is manifest that the notice of the application filed by Amarjit Kaur had to be served upon Ranjit Singh in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Sections 67 and 68 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the present petitioner was residing outside the local limits of the trial Court. Sections 67 and 68 are in the following terms:

"67. Service of summons outside local limits :

When a Court desires that a summons issued by it shall be served at any place outside its local jurisdiction, it shall ordinarily send such summons in duplicate to a Magistrate Within whose local jurisdiction the person summoned resides, or is, to be there served.

Proof of service in such cases and when serving officer not present (1) When a summons issued by a Court is served outside its local jurisdiction, and in any case where the officer who has served a summons is not present at the hearing of the case, an affidavit, purporting to be made before a Magistrate, that such summons has been served, a and duplicate of the summons purporting to be endorsed (in the manner provided by Section 62 or Section 64) by the person to whom it was delivered or tendered or with whom it was left, shall be admissible in evidence, and the statements made therein shall be deemed to be correct unless and until the contrary is provided.

(2) The affidavit mentioned in this section may be attached to the duplicate of the summons and returned to the Court."

The learned respondent''s counsel has frankly conceded that these provisions have not been complied with. by the trial Court in serving the present petitioner The impugned order indicates that service was effected on the petitioner by registered post and by proclamation in, a newspaper. Such service is not in accordance with Sections 67 and 68 ibid. It was observed by this Court in Jagdish Chander Versus Shakuntla, 1978 Marriage Law Journal (Vol. 1) ''424, that service of summons by registered post or through proclamation in a newspaper in an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not permissible. It is, therefrom quite cleat that in the present case exparte proceedings could not be taken against the present petitioner in he absence of proper service in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Sections 07 and 68 of the Code and as such the impugned order cannot be upheld. As a natural consequence this revision is allowed and the impugned exparte order of the trial Court dated April 8, 1992 is set aside The case is sent, back to the trial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving the present petitioner opportunity of defence. The parties have been directed to appear before the trial Court on September 11, 1984.