S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 15-2-1984, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in Criminal Misc. Judicial Case No. 9 of 1983. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as under. The applicants had submitted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) claiming maintenance. Shrimati Siyabai is the mother of applicant No. 2 Rakesh who was born t6 her from respondent Tularam. , Inspite of service of notice of that application under Section 125 of the Code, respondent Tularam remained absent. Those proceedings dragged on for quite a few months and ultimately an ex-parte order was passed on 28-11-1980 allowing that application. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, as the learned counsel for the petitioners states, respondent Tularam submitted an application for setting aside that ex-parte order, on a date in September 1981. That application was registered as a Criminal Miscellaneous Judicial Case. In that case 1-1-1982 was fixed for evidence. On that date Tularam as also his counsel were absent. That application was, therefore, dismissed in default. Tularam again submitted an application on 4-1-1982 for restoration of his earlier application which he had filed for setting aside the ex-parte order in 125 Criminal Procedure Code proceedings. This application was opposed on behalf of the present petitioners. After holding an enquiry, the trial Magistrate has allowed that application of Tularam for restoration of his application whereby he wanted the ex-parte order under 125 Criminal Procedure Code proceedings to be set aside. Aggrieved by this, the present petitioners have filed the present revision. ( 4 ) SHRI A. S. Usmani had all along been appearing in this Criminal Revision on behalf of the respondents. But when the case was called on for hearing, learned counsel stated that the respondent has taken away the file from him and he has no instructions. In view of this, he did not argue on behalf of the respondent and, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner was heard. ( 5 ) IN the application for restoration, Tula Ram had stated that on 1- P1982, he was suffering from stomach ache and was also having loose motions. His counsel Shri Han Om Mishra had gone away to Sagar and therefore, neither of the two could appear on that date. Dr. ( 5 ) IN the application for restoration, Tula Ram had stated that on 1- P1982, he was suffering from stomach ache and was also having loose motions. His counsel Shri Han Om Mishra had gone away to Sagar and therefore, neither of the two could appear on that date. Dr. T. R. Dhingra (P. W. 1) who had issued the certificate Ex. p. i on 2-1-1982 has stated that Tularam was suffering from fever which results in weakness. He denied that Tularam was suffering from diarrhea. Contrary to this, Tularam in his evidence stated that he was having loose motions with blood and had even vomited when he had gone to the doctor for treatment. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was unwell since last about ten days, but as has been stated by Dr. Dhingra, he was under his treatment only on 1st and 2nd January, 1982 and according to Tularam, he after 1-1-1982 went to his counsel for the first time after about a fortnight of the dismissal of the application. . When his counsel told him to get a medical certificate, Tularam took the counsel to the doctor and from there the certificate was obtained. This application for restoration of the earlier application had been filed on 4-1-82. Tularam in his cross-examination went to the extent of saying that the certificate Ex. p. i was taken from some other doctor and not from Dr. Dhingra. ( 6 ) CONTRARY to what Tularam states, Han Om Mishra, Advocate had stated that Tularam had come to him the next day to make an enquiry about his case. It is neither the stand of Tularam nor of Advocate Shri Had Om Mishra that in, absence of Tularam on that day Shri Han Om Mishra could not have appeared in the Court. It is apparent that Advocate Shri Man Om Mishra also left the case to its own fate and went away to Sagar without making any. arrangement about the case of Tularam which was fixed for 1-1-1982. ( 7 ) FROM what has been stated above, it is apparent that the evidence of Dr. It is apparent that Advocate Shri Man Om Mishra also left the case to its own fate and went away to Sagar without making any. arrangement about the case of Tularam which was fixed for 1-1-1982. ( 7 ) FROM what has been stated above, it is apparent that the evidence of Dr. Dhingra, Advocate Han Om Mishra and Tularam are self-contradictory on material points and it, clearly flows out from that evidence that the case for absence of respondent Tularam on 1-1-1982 was clearly a cooked up case merely to somehow get the restoration application allowed, which had been dismissed. The trial Magistrate has, in his order dated 15-2-1984, referred to the contradictions in the evidence of Dr. Dhingra and Tularam, but ignored the other contradictions. What seems to have weighed with the, trial Magistrate is the statement of Advocate, Han Om Mishra who in his evidence stated that Tularam had come to him on the next day and informed him about his illness. As already stated, Tularam does not say that he had gone to Advocate, Shri Han Om Mishra on the next day. According to him, he had gone to him for the first time after about a fortnight. If the alleged illness of Tularam is fake or a pretext, where is the question of his getting corroborated by the fact that he had gone to his counsel and told him about the said illness. ( 8 ) IN my opinion, the impugned order passed by the trial Magistrate is wholly perverse and contrary to the evidence and material on record. It has, therefore, to be set aside. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision is allowed. The order dated 15-2-1984 in Criminal Misc. Judicial Case No. 9 of 1983 is set aside. Accordingly, the application filed by Tularam for restoration of his application for setting aside the ex-parte order stands dismissed. Revision allowed. .