AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. K. Agarwal, J.—List has been revised Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not present. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 is present.
I have perused the impugned orders and other annexures. It transpires that the application for restoration for setting aside the expane order dated 631991 which was passed by XIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate fixing a sum of Rs. 300 per month as maintenance allowance was not decided. During pendency of the restoration application an application of realisation of maintenance allowance was moved by Respondent No. 4. On which the order for depositing Rs. 1,000 was passed. The petitioner again had filed an application along with an affidavit dated 1371994 against that order. An order was passed by learned Magistrate directing the petitioner lo deposit Rs. 1,000. That application was dismissed on the ground that he shall pay Rs. 1,000 to I he Respondent No. 4.
From the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that without service of notice the exparte proceedings were drawn and the order dated 631991 was
In the fact and circumstances of the case this writ petition is allowed. The Judicial Magistrate is directed to decide the restoration application filed by the petitioner immediately without any further delay.
Petitioner is directed to appear regularly on the date fixed. In the event of failure on his part expane proceeding may be drawn and concluded in accordance with law.
Petitioner is further directed to pay to the Respondent No. 4 as interim maintenance amount of Rs. 250 from the date of this order. This amount shall be paid to her regularly by ever)'' 10th of succeeding months.
With the above direction this petition is allowed.