THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2867 OF 2006 Date: 15-07-2010 Between Ailu Achaiah …..Petitioner And The State of A.P rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P and another …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2867 OF 2006 ORDER: The petitioner, a senior citizen and who is stated to be a freedom fighter filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the orders of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahaboobbad, Warangal in Crl.M.P No. 319 of 2006 in M.C No. 1 of 2005 dated 24- 04-2006. In spite of service of notice on the 2nd respondent, she has not chosen to represent the matter. The 2nd respondent filed the said M.C and obtained an ex parte order on 03-05-2005 whereby an amount of Rs.1200/- per month from the date of petition was awarded to her towards maintenance. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P No. 319 of 2006 seeking to set aside the ex parte order which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the petitioner was served with the notice in the M.C and remained ex parte and when once notice is served he is supposed to know the date of disposal of the petition and therefore, he has to file the application within 90 days from the date of the order and that the period of limitation has to be reckoned from the date of the order i.e., from 03-05-2005 and hence the petition filed to set aside the ex parte order beyond three months cannot be entertained. Thus holding, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. This Court issued notice before admission on 14-06-006 and by order dated 04-04-2007, stayed the further proceedings on condition that the petitioner deposits maintenance before the lower Court every month as ordered by it and subsequently the said order was modified stating that the petitioner should pay current maintenance every month and arrears of maintenance from the date of the ex parte order need not be paid. It is now represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is continuously paying the amount to the 2nd respondent. Since the petitioner has categorically stated that he is at the advanced age of 83 years and he came to know about the ex parte order on 17-10-2005 after he was served with notice stating that he has to answer the maintenance petition and as he is stated to have suffered from ill health from 01-08-2005 to 05-10-2005, he should be given an opportunity to contest the proceedings in M.C. Therefore, on the petitioner continuing to pay the amount of Rs.1200/- per month as awarded by the lower Court, ex parte order dated 03-05-2005 is set aside and the lower Court is directed to dispose of the MC afresh after hearing both the parties. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 15-07-2010 ks