1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 755/2003 (Tulsi Ram V/s Sayari ) Date of Order : 25/07/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. B.P.Bohra for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Chundawat for the respondent. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.3.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bhilwara (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.4.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mandal, district Bhilwara (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), was dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial court against the petitioner stating therein that she married to the petitioner according to Hindu 2 rites and from the wedlock she gave birth to two sons namely Lehru and Jagdish. It has been alleged in the petition that the petitioner having sufficient means failed to maintain and neglected the respondent and she was turned out of the matrimonial home. The notice of the application was served on the petitioner. The petitioner engaged his counsel who appeared in the Court on behalf of the petitioner. The counsel engaged by the petitioner continued to appear before the trial court on certain dates and subsequently he pleaded no instruction on 13.10.2000. The trial court proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and recorded the evidence of PW-1 Sayari, PW-2 Manohar and PW-3 Kanwarnath. On appreciation of the evidence produced by the respondent the trial court came to the conclusion that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the petitioner is liable to maintain his wife which the petitioner failed to maintain and neglected her despite having sufficient means and granted monthly allowance of maintenance @ Rs. 500/- vide order dated 26.4.2001. That order came to be challenged by the petitioner before the revisional court. The revision petition was barred by period of limitation and an application u/s 5 of the Act was also moved. The revisional court dismissed the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act since the petitioner failed to show the sufficient cause which prevented the petitioner to appear before 3 the trial court as also the revision petition. Hence this petition. I have carefully gone through the record of the trial court, statements of witnesses. In my view, the trial court was justified in proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner. The monthly allowance of maintenance granted in favour of the respondent herein cannot be said to be erroneous or excessive in any manner. A sum of Rs. 500/- is hardly an amount to maintain an adult person keeping in view the market inflation. It cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court. It is settled law that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, consciously and in exceptional cases. The case in hand is not the exceptional one warranting interference. The criminal misc. petition has no force and it is therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp