JUDGMENT R.P. Shukla, J. - This is an application, under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code . moved by one Ram Lal, praying to quash the orders, dated 27-2-1981 and 27-5-1981, passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, respectively. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, opposite party No 1, applied for maintenance, under Section 125, Cr P.C., against the applicant in the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradum. The Magistrate decided her application for maintenance ex-parte on 23-5-1980 and allowed her application for maintenance and passed an order that the applicant shall pay Rs. 300 per month by way of maintenance to her. He also ordered that the applicant shall pay further Rs. 200 per month in case the minor daughters of Smt. Kamlesh Kumari come to live with her for the maintenance of the said children. The opposite-party No. 1 applied for recovery of money and the Magistrate issued recovery warrants on 13-1-1981. On 27-2-1981, the applicant moved an application before the Magistrate, praying to set aside the ex parte order. On the same day, he moved another application, praying for stay of the recovery warrants. Both the orders, staying the recovery and then vacating the stay order, were passed by the Magistrate on the same day. Aggrieved by this order, dated 27-2-1981, passed by the Magistrate, the applicant went In revision before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge, dismissed the revision on 27-5-1981 Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, dated 27-5-1981, dismissing the revision of the applicant against the order of the Magistrate, dated 27-2-1981, by which the Magistrate vacated his order of stay of recovery of maintenance allowance from him, the applicant has moved the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 3. The main contention of the applicant is that his application for setting aside the ex parte order is still pending before the Magistrate and that the Magistrate has passed order on this application. Therefore, the applicant wants that the recovery of money as maintenance allowance from him he stayed till his application to set aside the ex parte order is decided by the Magistrate and, therefore, he has prayed that the order of the Magistrate, dated 27-2-1981 and that of the Sessions Judge, dated 27-5-1991, he quashed. 4. Therefore, the applicant wants that the recovery of money as maintenance allowance from him he stayed till his application to set aside the ex parte order is decided by the Magistrate and, therefore, he has prayed that the order of the Magistrate, dated 27-2-1981 and that of the Sessions Judge, dated 27-5-1991, he quashed. 4. The applicant moved his application for setting aside the ex parse order on 27-2-1981 that is the application was moved after more than three months. This application was moved after about nine months from the date when the order for maintenance was passed by the Magistrate. The second proviso to Section 125, Cr. P. C. reads as under : "Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, wilfully neglecting to attend the court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parse and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of cost to the opposite-party as the Magistrate may think just and proper." 5. The applicant thus did not move his application to set aside the ex parte order within time as contemplated by the aforesaid provision. The applicant is duty bound to maintain his wife and children. He has not denied that Smt. Kamlesh Kumari is his wife. He has also not denied that Smt. Kamlesh Kumari is living at Dehradun and he has not said a word that Smt Kamlesh Kumari was paid something in cash or kind by him towards her maintenance. The order for such payment was made as early as 23-5-1980. In pursuance of the order of maintenance, the money to be recovered from him is to be paid to Smt. Kamlesh Kumari towards the maintenance allowance. As long as the order of the Magistrate, allowing maintenance allowance to Smt. Kamlesh Kumari is not set aside the applicant has to continue paying the maintenance allowance. I do not see that this will create any hurdle in prosecuting his application to set aside the ex parte order. As long as the order of the Magistrate, allowing maintenance allowance to Smt. Kamlesh Kumari is not set aside the applicant has to continue paying the maintenance allowance. I do not see that this will create any hurdle in prosecuting his application to set aside the ex parte order. Even if payment of maintenance allowance pending his application for setting aside the ex parte order causes some injury to the applicant, it is not so grave as to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court. 6. ln the result, the application is dismissed and the interim order of stay, dated 15-7-1981, passed by this Court, is vacated.