Rahul v. State Of Punjab And Another
!
"#$# %& ' ' ()* '''
# # % + , +$)$
)%.
/ %! % ( + ''' $0 %!
% & 12'- -
-
3'425
! ""
! " # "$ % "!& ' ( ) ! "# * !
) # ") )
)"" "" + #
# $
#%
&'&
( & ) &*&& )
# + # # ( ## $ - #
# . " "
& & / 01 23 4
/ 5
$ &/&/&
#
7
/&&&82
$
12
2
#
01 2)3 +-
(
#
01 2 3
12 " -
#
&'& * $ $
&) && * ) 4
&'& *
#
$
#
#
/
-
( 4
2
#
-
- $ 9
" $
$ - #
1
(
-
9
/ ""
1 $
/
$ #
-
-
#
1
/0)3
!!"# :
, ; # " 5
:
55 #
$
!
$% % & % % '( )'('('(* ( "
#
$ "
#
%
# &
&
&
&
'
#
#
(
#) #
"
"
*
+
'
, "
"
$
#
!
(
- 6 -
/0)3
-#
# #- $
- # #
-
#-
$ <
#
# 1
- #
# -#
#
-
# -
#
$
/0)3
%
-
; #
- - $ #5
-#
# 1
$
# -
; $
# #
#
#- 1 #
#
-# #
"
(=
9
# - #- $
#
7.
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court makes it evident that despite filing an application for setting aside the ex-parte order, the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Court below. Further, there is nothing on record to communicate that the petitioner is willing to make the payment of arrears of maintenance. Hence, the application for setting aside the ex-parte order was dismissed and the conditional warrants were issued against the petitioner. Moreover, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was institued on 11.08.2015 and decided on 05.05.2016. A perusal of the maintenance order reveals that petitioner was duly served yet he did not appear before the learned trial Court to contest the case.
The petitioner cannot feign ignorance in the present case since he moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order on 05.09.2018, which was finally dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.07.2019. However, throughout the intervening period, the petitioner remained absent from the proceedings. Maintenance proceedings have to be understood in the backdrop of the overarching intent of Chapter IX of Cr.P.C.
$ $ # !
-
#
# * #
03
-
4-
5
' ' !# . /
$0
0( /
2
0(