( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Bidar, against an order passed under S. 488 Crlpc. by the First Class Magistrate, Bidar in crl. Case No. 81 of 1967. ( 2 ) THE few facts necessary for a decision in this case are: that responident-2 wife, filed an application against respondent-1 her husband under s. 488 Crlpc. claiming maintenance from him. The husband appeared through an Advocate and filed objections. Ultimately the wife came to be examined and cross-examined. Her cross-examination was completed on 21-7-1970. The order sheet of the date 21-7-1970 reads as follows "parties are present, cross-examination of PW. 1 and PW. 2, pw-3 and PW. 4's statement recorded. Petitioner's evidence. heard. Case adjourned for defence evidence call on 11-8-1970, on 11-8-1970, the Counsel appearing on behalf of the 'husband reported no instructions, and the case was adjourned to 17-8-1970 for arguments. On 17-8-1970 also it was adjourned for arguments to 24-8-1970: On 24-8-1-970 the arguments on behalf of the wife were heard, and orders were pronounced on 31-8-1970. By this order, the Magistrate has allowed the application of the wife and fixed the quantum of maintenance at Rs. 40 per month. ( 3 ) IT was as against this order that the husband filed a revision in Crlrp. No. 18 of 1970 before the Sessions Court on 25-11-1970. On hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge has opined that the Magistrate, 'while passing the order in question, has failed to comply with, the provisions of sub-sec. (6) of S. 488 Crpc. and the proviso thereunder. The reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge is that on 21-7-1970 the husband was not present and only his Advocate was present and as. such the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 was recorded in the absence of the husband and, therefore the mandatory provisions of sub-sec. (6) of S. 488 Crlpc. laying down that the evidence should be taken in the presence of the husband or father, have been offended. The further reasoning of the learned sessions Judge is that the Magistrate has, on 11-8-1970, on the Advocate for the husband reporting no instructions, not recorded that that he was satisfied that the husband was wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, and, therefore, it was necessary to hear the case ex parte. The further reasoning of the learned sessions Judge is that the Magistrate has, on 11-8-1970, on the Advocate for the husband reporting no instructions, not recorded that that he was satisfied that the husband was wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, and, therefore, it was necessary to hear the case ex parte. It is his opinion that because of this ground the order passed by the Magistrate is vulnerable. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has failed. to appreciate the record. made by the trial Court in its order-sheet dt. 21-7-1970. The opening sentence is "parties are present". That ordinarily means, and in this case there is no other material to hold otherwise, that both the parties were present. Therefore, it will have to be held that the husband was present w. hen the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 was recorded. In the result, the first ground relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of PWs, 1 to 4 appears to have been recorded in the absence of the husband falls to the ground. In regard to the remaining ground that the Magistrate has, on 11-8-1970, not recorded that he was satisfied that the husband was wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, and therefore, it was necessary to hear the case ex parte, I am of the opinon that this ground is not available because, as already pointed out, the husband was present in Court on 21-7-1970 and, therefore, it will have to be held that he was aware of the fact that the case was adjourned to the next date, viz. , 11-8-1970. It was the duty of the husband to be present in Court on that day, because the case was set down for defence evidence. If for any reason he found himself unable to attend the Court on 11-8-1970, it was his duty to get in contact with his Advocate and make arrangements for securing an adjournment. The fact that the Advocate of the husband reported no instructions, provides ample material to infer that the husband had failed to contact his Advocate thereby leaving the Advocate in the lurch. It is evident that the Advocate reported no instructions because of this attitude on the part of the husband. The fact that the Advocate of the husband reported no instructions, provides ample material to infer that the husband had failed to contact his Advocate thereby leaving the Advocate in the lurch. It is evident that the Advocate reported no instructions because of this attitude on the part of the husband. In this connection, the learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in sri Krishna Venkatesh Pai v. Devappa Ayyu Naik, 1967 1 Mys. L. J 236. In this decision, it has been held by this Court that where a Counsel has been engaged for an appeal and if, for any reason, he wants to report no instructions, it is his duty to notify the appellant first and then seek leave of the Court to retire from the case, and it is then the duty of the Court to protect the interests of the appellant by issuing notice to him or direct Counsel to file proof of having issued notice of his intention not to proceed with the appeal, and further that the Court cannot dismiss the appeal merely on the Counsel reporting no instructions. I am unable to see how this decision can support the reasoning put forward by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 5 ) THE facts that were under consideration in the said case were those that had transpired in an appeal. In appeals, no date of hearing would be communicated to the party directly. Only Counsel of the parties would be aware of the dates of hearing In the case now under consideration, the date of hearing on 11-8-1970 was in the know of the husband rs it was the date set out on 21-7-1970 in his presence. Therefore, in my opinion. there was no obligation cast on the Court to issue notice of the further adjournment to the husband on the Advocate reporting no instructions. The facts and circumstances narrated and discussed in the preceding paragraphs provide sufficient material to hold that the husband remained absent on 11-8-1970 without even making attempts to arrange to intimate the Court the reasons for his so remaining absent. It is, hence, seen that on merits, the reference is to be rejected. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has overlooked the latter part of the proviso to sub-sec. (6) of S. 488 Crlpc. It is, hence, seen that on merits, the reference is to be rejected. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has overlooked the latter part of the proviso to sub-sec. (6) of S. 488 Crlpc. The whole of the proviso reads as follows:"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. " ( 7 ) THE latter part of the proviso made it incumbent on the husband in this case to have applied to the Magistrate, that too within three months from the date of the order, viz. , 31-8-1970, setting out sufficient cause or ground for his remaining absent on 11-8-1970 and requesting for setting aside of the order now in question. When the law specifically lays down a particular procedure to be adopted it has to be complied with before an aggrieved person proceeds to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the higher courts. In view of the failure of the husband to take steps as narrated above, i. e. , to file an application before the said Magistrate within three months praying for setting aside the order now in question, the learned sessions Judge could not have, in law entertained the revision petition filed by the husband. In these circumstances, it is to be held that the revision petition filed by the husband in the Sessions Court at Bidar, is in law, not maintainable. It is in view of the foregoing reasons that the reference is rejected. --- *** --- .