ORDER The learned Additional Sessions Judge has recommended that this Court may quash the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi (Shri K.K. Bhasin) dated 23rd January 1969 dismissing the application made by the husband dated 6th December 1968, praying, to set aside an ex parte decree of maintenance under S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of his wife and child, on the ground that the same had not been filed within three months of the date of the ex parte decree as required by S.488(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-S. (6) of S.488 reads as follows :- "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 he set aside for good cause shown, on application made within three months from the date thereof." 2. It was stated by the husband that he came to know of process issued by the Court under S.488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from his realtions and when he inspected the Court records on the 4th December 1968, he came to know that an ex parte order far maintenance under S.448, Criminal P.C. had been passed against him on the basis that he had refused to receive the notice sent from the Court. He alleged that this endorsement of refusal of notice by him was not true. The learned Magistrate did not go into this question of the time at which the husband came to know of the passing of the said decree, because in his view no application for setting aside an ex parte order made under S.488, Criminal P.C. could be made after three months from the date of the said order. In other words, this view totally eliminated any reference to the knowledge of the person against whom such an order was made. In other words, this view totally eliminated any reference to the knowledge of the person against whom such an order was made. Shri Chander Bhan learned counsel for the husband, has very fairly, in the absence of the respondent or her counsel, drawn my attention to the view of the Punjab High Court in Hari Singh Ishar Singh Jat v. Mst. Dhanno Hari Singh, 1962(2) Cri LJ 581 (Punj), Gurdev Singh J., following the decision of Somasundaram J., in A.S. Govindan v. Mrs. Margaret Jayammal, AIR 1950 Mad 153 , held that the three months' period mentioned in S.488(6), Criminal P.C., did not mean three months from the date of the knowledge of the order. Support was derived for this view on the basis of the legislature not mentioning the knowledge of the person affected (if that was the case) as it did in tome other statutes. In a different context, Raja mannar C.J., observed in O.A.O.A.M. Muthiah Chettiar v. Commr. of Income-tax. AIR 1951 Mad 204 that if a person is given a right to resort to the remedy of getting rid of an adverse order within a prescribed time limitation should not be computed from a date earlier than that on which the party aggrieved actually knew of the order or had an opportunity of knowing the order. Since this is the basic approach to a period of limitation of this description I respectfully disagree with the view taken by Somasundaram J. in A.S. Govindan, AIR 1950 Mad 153 and also by Gurdev Singh J. in Hari Singh Ishar Singh, 1962 (2) Cri LJ 581 (Punj). 3. That limitation in such a case commences to run only from the date of the knowledge of the order to the aggrieved party and not from the date of the passing of the order is a principle of general application. It would be needless to multiply authorities on this question. Reference, however, can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Raja Harish chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500 . That was a case under the Land Acquisition Act. The expression "the date of the award" used in proviso(b) to S.18(4) of the Land Acquisition Act was held to mean the date when the award was either communicated to the party or was known by him either actually or constructively. That was a case under the Land Acquisition Act. The expression "the date of the award" used in proviso(b) to S.18(4) of the Land Acquisition Act was held to mean the date when the award was either communicated to the party or was known by him either actually or constructively. Jaganmohan Raddy J. (as his Lordship then was) held in Zohra Begum v. Mohamed Gthose Qadri Qadeeri, AIR 1966 Andh Pra 50 in a case arising under S.488(6) of the Criminal P.C., itself, following the above said decision of the Supreme Court, that the date of the ex parta order referred to in the said provision would take in cases where the aggrieved party had knowledge of the said order at a later data. The decision of Somasundaram J. in A.S. Govindan AIR 1950 Mad 153 was not followed; that of Rajamannar C.J. in Muthiah Chettiar AIR 1951 Mad 204 was followed. 4. I, therefore, hold that a person aggrieved by an ex parte order made under S.488 of the Criminal P.C., can apply even more than three months after the date of the ex parte order if he can show good cause why the said order has to be set aside. On this question, namely, as to when the husband came to know of the said order, there has been no determination by the trying Magistrate. The trying Magistrate would, therefore, go into the question as to when the husband came to know of the proceedings under S.488, Criminal P.C. and of the passing of the ex parte order and whether the said knowledge was obtained by the husband within three months of the filing of the said application to set aside that order. The trying Magistrate will also go into this question whether there is good cause to set aside the ex parte order. The reference of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is accordingly accepted. 5. The parties will appear before the trying Magistrate on 24th March 1970. Since neither the wife nor her counsel is present during the hearing of this petition I consider it necessary to direct that if the wife does not appear before the learned trying Magistrate on that date he will issue notice to the wife for the hearing of this application by the husband for an actual date to be fixed by him thereafter. Reference accepted.