1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1103/2006 (Raj Kumar V/s Smt. Radha and Anr.) Date of Order : 09/07/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. B.K.Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr Sachin Acharya for the respondents. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.3.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Chittorgarh (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No. 07/2006 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.1.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begu (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), was dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant petition are tht the non-petitioner No.1 Smt. Radha and her 2 minor son Virendra non-petitioner No.2, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner seeking monthly allowance of maintenance. The notices were sent to the petitioner but returned unserved and ultimately notice was published in the newspaper “Lokjivan” on 19.1.2004. Despite publication of the notice in the newspaper, the petitioner failed to appear and an ex-parte order granting monthly allowance of maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- in favour of the non-petitioner No.1 and @ Rs. 500/- in favour of minor son was passed. The petitioner filed an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the ex-parte order granting monthly allowance of maintenance which came to be dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 13.1.2006, against which the petitioner preferred a revision petition which also came to be dismissed by the order impugned dated 28.3.2006. Hence this petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no provision alike the provision under Civil Procedure Code i.e. Order 5 Rule 20 for substituted service by publication of notice and therefore, the trial court fell in error in treating sufficient service by publication of notice in the newspaper. Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence that the alleged newspaper “Lokjivan” is 3 daily in circulation. Be that as it may. The petitioner came with a case that he has been residing at Jalgaon, Maharashtra and there is no occasion to reach the newspaper there. This fact has not been taken note of by the trial court while dismissing the application seeking to set aside the ex-parte order. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay the monthly allowance of maintenance granted by the trial court as also the arrears of maintenance to the non-petitioners during pendency of the petition if the matter is remanded to the trial court for afresh decision on the application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C.. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 13.1.2006 passed by the trial court and the order dated 28.3.2006 passed by the revisional court are set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court to decide the application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. afresh keeping in view that the petitioner has been residing at Jalgaon, Maharashtra and there being no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for publication of notice in the newspaper, within two months from receipt of the certified copy of this order. During pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner shall continue to pay month by month a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the non- petitioner No.1 Smt. Radha and Rs. 500/- to Virendra non- 4 petitioner No.2 as also pay the arrears of maintenance. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith. Stay petition also stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp