AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Somasundaram, J.—On 7th September, 1948, an ex parte order for maintenance was passed against the petitioner. He filed an application
on 4th January, 1949, to set aside that order and also contested the quantum of maintenance. Under the proviso to Clause 6 of Section 488,
Criminal Procedure Code, an ex parte order may be set aside for good cause shown on application made within three months from the date of the
order. This application which was filed on 4th January, 1949, is undoubtedly more than three months from the date of the order. But it is
contended by the learned Counsel that the period of three months means three months from the date of the knowledge of the order. In short he
wants the word "" knowledge "" to be introduced which is not there. I do not see any reason why the section should be read with the word
knowledge"" which is not there. If the intention of the Legislature was that it should be three months from the date of the knowledge of the order it
would have said so. I therefore agree with the lower Court that the application wais filed out of time and is liable to be dismissed.
Another fact urged by the learned Counsel is that he has shown how he has to pay certain debts and this circumstance must be taken into
consideration in assessing the income of the petitioner. The circumstances which he alleges existed even at the time of the order. It is not as if they
came into existence after the order was passed. Change in the circumstances means change in the existence of circumstances and not change in
proof of circumstances. The lower Court was therefore right in rejecting the petition. I see therefore no reason to interfere with the order of the
lower Court.
The petition is dismissed.