IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD. WEDENSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.R.C.No.1456 OF 2008 Between: M.Rameshchandra Reddy …Petitioner/Respondent A n d Smt.M.Karthika Reddy and another … Respondents/Petitioner HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.R.C.No.1456 OF 2008 ORDER: This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 26-06-2008 in M.C.No.307 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the said petition filed by the first respondnet herein claiming maintenance, was allowed, awarding Rs.25,000/- towards monthly maintenance. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed the maintenance case alleging, in brief, as follows:- The marriage of the petitioner with the first respodnent took place on 05-04-2007. According to the first respondent, at the time of marriage, cash and gold ornaments worth Rs.35 lakhs were given and one week after marriage, the petitioner herein demanded additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs threatening that if the amount is not paid, the first respondent herein will not be taken to USA along with the petitioner. The petitioner is working as Project Engineer in Atlanta in USA earning $ 7000 per month. On 18-04-2007, the petitioner took the first respondent to USA but continued the demand for additional dowry and behaved like a sadist and confined her in a room. The petitioner also obtained signature of the first respondent on some divorce papers under coercion as she failed to comply with the demand for payment of Rs.5 lakhs towards additional dowry. The petitioner left the house and did not return even after one month. The first respondent informed the same to her parents and with their help, she came back to India on 05- 10-2007. The petitioner is earning Rs.2.8 lakhs in terms of Indian currency and has got sufficient means to provide maintenance. The first respondent, therefore, sought maintenance at Rs.50,000/- per month. 4. The petitioner remained ex parte. The father of the first respondent, who was her power of attorney holder, was examined as P.W.1 and he filed his evidence by way of an affidavit on behalf of the first respondent and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked. On a consideration of the material on record, the learned Judge, Additional Family Court allowed the petition in part, awarding maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of petition i.e., 05- 12-2007. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner herein was not served with the notices in the maintenance case, but still he was set ex parte. He would next contend that the first respondent herein did not enter the witness box to give evidence and her father alone was examined and he is not a competent witness to speak on behalf of the first respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, would submit that notices in the maintenance case were, in fact, sent to the petitioner herein and he refused to receive the same. He would further submit that as GPA holder of the first respondent, her father, P.W.1, was entitled to depose on behalf of his daughter and the question of his being subjected to cross- examination does not arise, as the petitioner himself did n o t choose to contest the petition. The lower court records were called for and perused. As seen from the notice papers, the notices sent to the petitioner to USA were returned with an endorsement “unclaimed”. As the petitioner herein did not choose to appear before the Court in response to the notices sent to him, the learned Judge, Family Court has rightly set him ex parte. Even subsequently also, the petitioner herein has not taken any steps before the Family Court for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him. 7. In a recent decision in INDO AUTOMOBILES v. JAI DURGA ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS[1], the Apex Court held that it is well settled that once registered notice has been sent to the correct address with acknowledgment due, that presumed that service has been made effective. The contention of the petitioner herein that notices were not served on him and, therefore, the ex parte order is liable to be set aside, cannot be countenanced. 8. In support of his plea that P.W.1, father of the first respondent, was not competent to depose on behalf of the daughter, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon a decision in JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI AND ANOTHER v. INDUSIND BANK LTD., AND OTHERS[2] wherein it was held as under: “Order III Rules 1 and 2 CPC empowers the holder of power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. In our view the word “acts” employed in Order III Rules 1 and 2 CPC confines only in respect of “acts” done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of granted by the instrument. The term “acts” would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some “acts” in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined.” The above decision was rendered in a suit for recovery of amounts due, which was contested. In the context of the directions given by the Apex Court while remitting the matter to the tribunal, it was held that shifting the burden of proving on the appellants that they have a share in the property, it was obligatory on the appellants to have entered the box and discharged the burden by themselves, as the power of attorney holder did not have personal knowledge of the matter with the appellants and, therefore, it was held that he can neither depose on his personal knowledge nor can he be cross-examined on those facts which are to the personal knowledge of the principal. The present proceedings are under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. The proviso thereunder states that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is willfully avoiding service, or willfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte. Of course, such an order may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof. But, admittedly, no such application is filed. Thus, by virtue of the proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C when the petitioner avoided service or willfully neglected to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte. There is no requirement to record the evidence and subject the witness to cross-examination, as the matter was not contested. Even otherwise, it is not as though P.W.1 is a stranger or a mere GPA holder. He is also father of the first respondent herein. He has also spoken from his personal knowledge as to the performance of the marriage of his daughter with the petitioner herein and the subsequent demand raised by the petitioner for additional dowry and the harassment and ill-treatment meted out by the petitioner to the first respondent for P.W.1's failure to meet the additional dowry and as to how he went to the rescue of the first respondent to bring her back from US when she was virtually left as a destitute there, by the petitioner herein. 9. In the circumstances of the present case, P.W.1 is certainly a competent witness to depose on behalf of his daughter. That the first respondent also could have given evidence is altogether different. The testimony of P.W.1 cannot be taken out of consideration on the ground that he is merely a GPA holder because he is also father of the first respondent and a witness to many aspects that gave rise to cause of action. The decision cited is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case. The impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, does not, therefore, suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 10. Regarding the quantum of maintenance also, it is not disputed that the petitioner herein is working as an Engineer in USA and the plea of the first respondent that the petitioner is earning Rs.2.8 lakhs per month in terms of Indian currency is also not refuted. 11. In the circumstances, the amount of Rs.25,000/- per month granted as maintenance by the Family Court cannot be considered either excessive or unreasonable. 12. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. _____________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J 5th August, 2009 Lrkm. [1] (2008) 8 SCC 529 [2] AIR 2005 SC 439