CRM-MNo.29151 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-29151 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:November 16, 2010 Baldeva ...........Petitioner Versus Kamla Devi ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Ajit Atri,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.P.Singh,Advocate for the respondent. ** Sabina, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short`Cr.P.C.') for quashing of criminal order dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure P2) and for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 20.4.2009 (Annexure P1) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Karnal . Respondent-Kamla Devi had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 24.12.1982 and a sum of Rs. 360/- per month was awarded as maintenance to the respondent and her daughter. Thereafter, the respondent moved a petition for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. In the said proceedings, the respondent-petitioner had been appearing in the Court but, thereafter during the pendency of the petition, CRM-MNo.29151 of 2009 -2- petitioner stopped appearing before the trial Court and was proceeded ex- parte vide order dated 11.6.2007. The petition filed for enhancement of maintenance by the respondent was allowed vide order dated 20.4.2009 (Annexure P1). Para 8 of the impugned order reads as under:- "It is further observed that as per jamabandi Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, the respondent is owner of 79 K-7M of agricultural land in village Kachhana, Tehsil and District Kaithal. This fact was specifically averred by the petitioner in the present petition and apart from a vague denial, the respondent has not rebutted this claim. On the other hand, the petitioner has proved her claim by producing the relevant revenue record. It thus stands proved that the respondent is a man of means and such a big chunk of agricultural land is presumed to generate sufficient income, Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is very much entitled to enhancement of maintenance." The trial Court held that the respondent was entitled to enhanced maintenance @ of Rs. 2500/ per month from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 13.8.2005. An application was moved by the petitioner for setting aside of the said order dated 20.4.2009 ( Anneuxre P1). The said application was dismissed vide order dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure P2). The said impugned order reads as under:- “Reply to the application for setting aside the exparte order dated 20.4.09 filed. Heard and records of the case perused. The applicant-Baldeva has prayed that order dated 20.4.09 be set-aside as there were several cases pending between the parties due to CRM-MNo.29151 of 2009 -3- which he was confused about the dates and did not appear before the court on 20.4.09. He came to know about the passing of the impugned order only on receipt of summons in proceedings under 128 Cr.P.C. The application has been resisted on the plea that it is a delaying tactic and the application is highly delayed. The applicant has filed a false application as he was fully aware about the passing of the order and it has,therefore, been prayed that the same be dismissed. The applicant has himself admitted that he was confused about the date though he was fully aware about the pendency of the present proceedings. There is nothing on record to show that he made any effort whatsoever to verify the proceedings in the main petition at any stage from the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. 20.4.09 till the date on which he was served with summons in proceedings under 128 Cr.P.C. His claim is completely vague and false in any case the application is barred by limitation as it has been filed more than four months after the passing of the impugned order. There is thus no justification in allowing the present application, which is accordingly dismissed. Papers be tagged with the original file and be consigned to records." The reasons given by the trial Court while dismissing the application are sound reasons. Petitioner had failed to appear before the Court on account of confusion about the date fixed in civil cases pending between the parties. Petitioner was well aware of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. against him. Petitioner had failed to CRM-MNo.29151 of 2009 -4- make any effort to verify the stage of proceedings and hence, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Moreover, the amount of maintenance allowed by the trial Court to the respondent cannot be said to be on the higher side in these days of high prices and in view of the fact that the petitioner is owner of 79 kanals 7 marlas of agricultural land in village Kachhana. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge November 16, 2010 arya CRM-MNo.29151 of 2009 -5-