Order.- This is a petition by the counter-petitioner in M.C. No.16 of 1960 against whom an ex parte order of maintenance was passed awarding a monthly allowance of Rs.25 to the child. This order was passed on 6th August, 1960 and on 7th December, 1961 the petitioner filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order. It was dismissed as barred by time. It is the correctness of this finding that is challenged in this petition. Section 488 (6), Criminal Procedure Code, reads as follows: “(6) All evidence under this Chapter shall be taken in the presence of the husband or father as the case may be, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed in the case of summons cases. Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that he is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglects to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte. Any orders so made may be set aside for good cause shown on application made within three months from the date thereof.” So an ex parte order can legally be passed only if the Court is satisfied that the party is wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglects to attend the Court. The proceedings under section 488 are judicial proceedings of a criminal Court and it is a salutary rule based upon principles of natural justice that a judicial order cannot be made affecting a party without giving reasonable notice. Summons issued in proceedings under section 488 must be served in accordance with section 68 of the Code. Section 68, Criminal Procedure Code, reads: “(1) Every summons issued by a Court under this Code shall be in writing in duplicate, signed and sealed by the presiding officer of such Court or by such other officer as the High Court may from time to time, by rule, direct. (2) Such summons shall be served by a police-officer, or subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, by an officer of the Court issuing it or other public servant.” * * * * * An examination of sections 68 to 73 of the Code shows that wherever practicable a summons should be served personally on the person to be summoned. When such person cannot, by the exercise of due diligence, be found, it should be served on an adult male member of the family. If service cannot, alter the exercise of due diligence, be effected in the manner prescribed by sections 69 and 70 a duplicate of the summons should be affixed to a conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the person summoned ordinarily resides. There was no provision for service by registered post in the Codes of 1891, 1872, and 1882. Sub- section (3) of section 69 which was newly added in the Code of 1898 provided that service of summons on an incorporated company or other body corporate may be effected by serving it on the secretary, local manager or other principal officer of the corporation or by registered post letter addressed to the chief officer of the corporation. In such case the service shall be deemed to have been affected when the letter would arrive in the ordinary course of post. This would show that service by registered post on a person summoned in proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, is permissible only in the case of an incorporated company or other body corporate and in no other case. In this case it is seen that originally notice was served on the brother-in-law of the petitioner, but the learned Magistrate was apparently not satisfied with that service and ordered notice through registered post and that was returned with the endorsement that the addressee refused to accept it. This was taken by the learned Magistrate as due service and the ex parte order was passed. The question is whether service by registered post would give jurisdiction to the Magistrate to proceed ex parte. If it will not, the order will be illegal and would have to be set aside. The question came up in the case in Charan Das v. Firm Puranlal Govind Pershad1 where Ted Chand, J., said: “The refusal of respondents to receive the summons sent by registered post for attendance on 31st July, 1924 did not amount to ‘due service’ under the law then in force.” In Sarat Chandra Ray Choudhury2 it was held that a summons sent by registered post is invalid as not being in accordance with section 68, Criminal Procedure Code, and a disobedience of such a summons is not an offence. Following these decisions in Gurnam Singh v. Mt. Datto1 it was held that the proceedings under section 488 are judicial proceedings of a criminal Court and are governed by the Code. Section 68 applies to summons to accused as well as persons summoned in proceedings under the Code. The service of summons by registered post letter on the person proceeded against under section 488 is not permitted. In such a case the person cannot be proceeded against ex parte under the Proviso to section 488 (6). This decision has been followed in C. A. George v. Chacko Joseph2. It was held that as the procedure prescribed in Chapter VI of the Code for compelling appearance of parties has not been followed in the case, it has to be held that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to determine the case ex parte and that the revision petitioner has shown good cause for setting aside the ex parte order. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in these cases. The direction in sub- section (6) of section 488 is peremptory that all evidence under Chapter XXXVI of the Code shall be recorded in the presence of the husband or father, as the case may be, or when his personal attendance is dispensed, with, in the presence of his Pleader and the Magistrate cannot proceed to hear the ca;e ex parte except on being satisfied that the respondent has either wilfully avoided service of summons or has wilfully neglected to attend the hearing. It is therefore necessary that there must be proper service of summons on the respondent and it is only then that it could be said that there is wilful avoidance or neglect in attending the Court. It is then argued that this petition has been filed beyond three months of the order and, therefore, in any view it is barred and has to be dismissed. The Proviso shows that the ex parte order can be passed only after due service of summons and when the Magistrate is satisfied that he is wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglects to attend Court and it is specifically stated ‘any orders so made’ is to be set aside within three months. If the ex parte order is passed without complying with the provisions of the section, then the bar of three months will not apply. If the ex parte order is passed without complying with the provisions of the section, then the bar of three months will not apply. In this case the mandatory rules of procedure relating to the form andservice of summons have not been observed and the Magistrate has, therefore, no jurisdiction, to pass the order and the order cannot be allowed to stand. The order of the Magistrate is, therefore, set aside and the case is sent back to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. M.C.M.-----Revision allowed; case remanded.