JUDGMENT M. Wahajuddin, J. - This is an application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure by Bodh Raj, the husband of opposite party No. 2, praying that the Orders of the courts below including that of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the applicant's revision may be set aside and the Munsif-Magistrate concerned may be directed to decide the petition of the wife u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, afresh. 2. It would appear that the opposite party No. 2 filed an application before the Magistrate concerned on 10-7-1979, seeking maintenance from the husband on grounds of her desertion by the husband. The Magistrate as per its ex parte Order dated 10-11-1979 allowed a maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to opposite party No. 2. The applicant preferred an application under proviso to Section 126(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, for setting aside that ex-parte Order. The application was rejected by the Magistrate. The applicant then preferred a revision and that revision was also rejected. 3. It is urged that the applicant had no knowledge or information of the proceedings u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, and the services effected were not in accordance with Chapter IV Sections 61 - 69, Code of Criminal Procedure, hence the applicant is entitled to a fresh hearing of the matter on merits. 4. It was also urged that the findings of the courts below that the applicant had knowledge of the proceedings is erroneous. Affidavit was filed in support of that contention. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 controverting the allegations and maintaining that the applicant was present in Ghaziabad court, where summons were taken for service, and the applicant got full knowledge of the proceedings, though the Civil Judge concerned declined to himself serve the process. In rejoinder-affidavit it w as maintained that the applicant was not present in the Ghaziabad court on that date. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the materials on record. Sections 61 - 69, Code of Criminal Procedure, provides the various modes of service of summons and it would be found that any service of summons, by publication is not provided for. It would, thus, appear that the applicant was not served in accordance with those provisions. 6. Sections 61 - 69, Code of Criminal Procedure, provides the various modes of service of summons and it would be found that any service of summons, by publication is not provided for. It would, thus, appear that the applicant was not served in accordance with those provisions. 6. Section 126(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, however, contains the special provisions, where the Magistrate can proceed ex-parte. It is laid down therein that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any party concerned is avoiding service or is wilfully neglecting to attend the court, he can proceed to record evidence ex-parte in absence of that party. The very Sub-section also provides the safeguards for the interest of the absentee party and it has been laid down that the party against whom the ex-parte Order has been passed can come forward and, if sufficient grounds are shown, such ex parte Order can be set aside. 7. The applicant has also availed of that remedy by moving the Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge in revision for setting aside the ex-parte Order in question. The concurrent findings of the two courts are that the applicant was well aware of the proceedings and avoided the service and wilfully neglected to put in appearance, having knowledge of the proceedings, so it is not a suitable case for setting aside the ex-parte Order. 8. The law is well settled that this Court exercising powers u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, does not function as a court of appeal or revision and it would not enter into questions of fact, particularly when the matter has been concluded by concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below. I may also mention that while disposing of the revision the Sessions Judge has given an elaborate judgment dealing with the facts and circumstances of the case thread bare. An affidavit was filed in the Magistrate's court that the applicant was present in the Ghaziabad court when the application was moved before the Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, seeking to have the summons served. That allegation was not controverted by any counter-affidavit before the Magistrate. The Additional Sessions Judge hearing the revision has rightly stressed on the point to fortify his view and finding that the husband, namely, the applicant, had full knowledge and information of these proceedings against him u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance. 9. That allegation was not controverted by any counter-affidavit before the Magistrate. The Additional Sessions Judge hearing the revision has rightly stressed on the point to fortify his view and finding that the husband, namely, the applicant, had full knowledge and information of these proceedings against him u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance. 9. Having dealt with that aspect of the matter, which may also reflect upon the conduct of the applicant, namely, the husband, 1 now proceed to consider the main argument urged before this Court. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that a finding must be recorded that the party concerned is wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the court before the Magistrate proceeds ex-parte. Reliance in that connection was placed upon the case of Joginder Singh Surmukh Singh Vs. Smt. Balkaran Kaur, (1972) CriLJ 93 . Section 126(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, in force at present is, in substance, reproduction of Section 488 (6) of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, namely the corresponding Section. While considering that provision it was held by the Punjab High Court that though there may not be actual service in accordance with the corresponding provisions in the old Code of Criminal Procedure, that in itself would not render the ex parte proceedings bad. They can be considered as grounds in the matter of prayer for setting aside an ex parte Order, but in itself the non observance of the provisions regarding service would not vitiate the ex parte proceedings. It has, however, been further held that there should be a finding by the Magistrate of his satisfaction about the wilful avoidence of service or wilful neglect to attend the court, though it may be correct or incorrect. It is urged that the Magistrate in this case did not record any such finding. 10. Reliance was also placed upon the case of Vankatrao v. Rukmini Rai AIR 1954 Hyd 178, in which the court while disposing of the revision, held that in the circumstances of that particular case the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (6) have not been complied with. I may mention that the facts of the case of Vankatrao (supra) are distinguishable in the sense that in that case from the record no circumstance appeared from which one could infer that the Magistrate had ever considered the aspect of wilful absence. I may mention that the facts of the case of Vankatrao (supra) are distinguishable in the sense that in that case from the record no circumstance appeared from which one could infer that the Magistrate had ever considered the aspect of wilful absence. In fact, the position in that case was that the Counsel of the husband was present, though the husband was not present on any dates, and the evidence was, thus, recorded behind his back. The provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, contemplates that the Magistrate may dispense with the presence of any party and allow their presence through their Counsel. Such Order had not been passed and it was held that it would amount to deciding the matter ex-parte. In that case neither that position occurred to the Magistrate, nor he exercised his mind, nor he approached the matter from such angle. So the Hyderabad case has to be considered in that background. Still, the following observations made by that Court are significant and I may quote: From the record no circumstance appear from which one can infer that the Magistrate has ever considered this aspect of the case or that he was satisfied that the revision Petitioner was wilfully absenting himself. 11. Section 126(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, does not lay down any form in which the satisfaction is to be recorded. The crux of the matter is whether the Magistrate's mind was focussed on the aspect in question before he proceeded ex parte or not. If the Magistrate completely over-looks that matter and does not exercise his mind, then of course non-compliance of the condition contained in Section 126(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, may go to the root of the matter. But if his mind was focussed, though he referred to any wrong fact or did not refer to main fact, that would not completely vitiate the proceedings and at the best for the Petitioner that would be irregularity. In the present case, before proceeding ex parte the Magistrate observed that the party concerned, namely, the husband has been served by publication as well, yet he has neither filed his written statement, nor has put in appearance. From this background of the case it can be inferred, though in clear and express words, such satisfaction was not recorded, that the Magistrate did exercise his mind and was satisfied on the point. From this background of the case it can be inferred, though in clear and express words, such satisfaction was not recorded, that the Magistrate did exercise his mind and was satisfied on the point. It is noteworthy that from the record it would be born out that attempt for service by different modes was made. Publication was got made, though not provided for, registered envelop was sent though not received and attempt of service through the court was made. The opposite party No. 2 even took summons to Ghaziabad with the Orders of the court where the proceedings u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, was pending for service through the Civil Judge, Ghaziabad. As the Civil Judge could not be given such direction, he naturally declined to effect service himself. Anyway, there are concurrent finding of fact that the applicant did become aware of the proceedings in the court concerned when summon was taken to Ghaziabad and was present in that court on that date. True, that while passing the Order and proceeding ex parte the Magistrate did not state all these facts in his Order and simply stated that service through publication has also been made. But the use of word 'also' is significant, meaning thereby that he was conscious regarding attempt by different modes for service. When that is the position and there is also no set form provided for recording satisfaction, the Magistrate can at the worst for the opposite party be said to have fallen into an irregularity. It is noteworthy that the judgment, passed in the Punjab case was in pursuance of a revision and an interference can be made in revision even on grounds of irregularity, if it has caused any prejudice. So the ultimate Order passed in that case is to be considered in that background. 12. It is a settled law that powers u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, are to be sparingly exercised. True that inherent powers exist in the Court, but they are not meant for helping a party, whose conduct shows that he has been all through avoiding service and actually wilfully neglected to put in appearance, and now wants to take advantage of his own unjustified conduct by seeking exercise of inherent powers of this Court. I do not consider it a fit case to exercise the inherent powers. I do not consider it a fit case to exercise the inherent powers. I may mention that in the case of Matoli v. Smt. Rukmani 1978 ACR 230 : 1978 AWC 436 (DB) inspite of a finding of fact by the court that the Executive Magistrate, after the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had lacked jurisdiction to execute the earlier Order granting maintenance, the Court declined to exercise powers u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, holding that it was not a proper case for exercise of powers u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. In the result, the petition is dismissed.