JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a revision by husband against ex parte award of maintenance to the non-applicants wife and minor child. ( 2. ) ON 28-12-1985, the non-applicants filed an application claiming Rs. 500/- p. m. to her and Rs. 300/- p. m. to the child as maintenance on the allegations that they were married about 5 years ago but their marital life was disrupted by dowry demands and finally the applicant turned her out of the house with four months pregnancy. The non-applicants served a notice dated 25-10-1985 demanding maintenance but of no avail. The N. As. submitted that the applicant has substantial income from Press, house-rents, sale of milk and agriculture. ( 3. ) ON 4-3-1986, the applicants counsel appeared and took time to file written statement on 2-4-1986. Since no reply was filed, the applicant was allowed further time subject to payment of costs Rs. 25/ -. On 1-5-1986 his counsel filed the written statement without paying the costs. The learned trial Court therefore passed an order that the written statement, though kept on record, will not be treated as filed. The case was then fixed for evidence on 5-5-1986. The applicant, through his counsel, filed an application for condoning his absence on that date on the ground of illness and another application for adjournment on the ground of counsels personal difficulties. The learned trial Court allowed the applications on conditions of paying Rs. 140/- towards the costs of the non-applicants witnesses, and he shall be ready to participate in the proceedings on the next date i. e. 7-6-1986. On this date the non-applicants appeared with their witnesses. Their statements were recorded. The applicant again, as usual, did not appear. Even his counsel did not appear. The case was adjourned to 17-6-1986 for arguments. On this date also the non-applicant alone appeared but the applicant remained absent. The learned trial Court heard arguments and passed the impugned order granting maintenance @ Rs. 400/- p. m. to the wife and @ Rs. 100/p. m. to the child, payable with effect from December, 1985. ( 4. ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the applicant filed this revision, along with an application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of nine days. The delay in filing revision was condoned by order dated 23-7-1987. ( 5. 100/p. m. to the child, payable with effect from December, 1985. ( 4. ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the applicant filed this revision, along with an application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of nine days. The delay in filing revision was condoned by order dated 23-7-1987. ( 5. ) THE learned counsel for the applicant first submitted that the Court at Banda had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The question whether the non-applicants reside within the jurisdiction of Court at Banda or not cannot be entertained for the first time in this revision, since no foundation was laid in the trial Court. The objection as to the jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time before this Court. There are catena of decisions like Ram Saran Parshotam Dass v. Smt. Soman Wati, 1964 Cr. LJ. (Pandh) 483, Ambalal Narandas Patel v. Dhiben Dahyabhai Patel, AIR 1963 Guj. 91 , taking the view that even if the proceedings were taken in wrong Court, when the question of jurisdiction was riased for the first time, the High Court will not disturb the order of the trial Court unless failure of justice has been occasioned by such order. The defect, if any, in the local or territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate is curable under section 531 of the old Code analogous to section 462 of the present Code. See:- Mohd. Maroof v. State through Collector and Anr. , 1969 Cr. LJ. (All) 533 and Abdul Ghaffar v. Bibi Hafiza Khatoon, AIR 1968 Pat. 307 . The objection is therefore overruled. ( 6. ) IT was next argued that section 126 makes it mandatory to take all evidence in presence of the person against whom the order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made but that was not done. Magistrate also failed to record his satisfaction as required by the proviso that the applicant was wilfully neglecting to attend Court. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the absence of such a finding vitiates the ex parte order. He relied on Bhimappa Gangappa Sonar v. Smt. Indirabai Kom Bhimappa Sonar, 1981 Cr. LJ. NOC 8 and The State v. Bhimrao and Anr. , AIR 1963 Mysore 239. ( 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the absence of such a finding vitiates the ex parte order. He relied on Bhimappa Gangappa Sonar v. Smt. Indirabai Kom Bhimappa Sonar, 1981 Cr. LJ. NOC 8 and The State v. Bhimrao and Anr. , AIR 1963 Mysore 239. ( 7. ) THE question for decision is whether the Magistrate proceeding to hear and determine the case ex parte, must record his satisfaction that the applicant was wilfully neglecting to attend the Court and whether in the absence of such a finding, it cannot be classified as an "order so made" envisaged by proviso to section 126 (2 ). Section 126 (2) of the Code runs as under: "126 (2 ). All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons cases: 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, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte 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 costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper. " ( 8. ) THE sub-section makes it mandatory to record all evidence in presence of the husband or the father as the case may be. The law does not contemplate ex parte proceeding except when the Magistrate is satisfied that the person concerned is wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglects to attend the Court. Therefore, before, a Magistrate proceeds ex parte against the husband or the father, as the case may be, he must have subjective satisfaction that every effort has been made to secure his presence in the Court. The question arises whether the Magistrate before proceeding to hear ex parte must record his satisfaction within the terms of the proviso that is wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court. The question arises whether the Magistrate before proceeding to hear ex parte must record his satisfaction within the terms of the proviso that is wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court. Section 126 (2) is analogous to section 488 (6) of the repealed Code. One view is that the Magistrate cannot proceed to hear the case ex parte without recording his satisfaction that the respondent has either wilfully avoided the service of summons or has wilfully neglected to attend the Court. In support of this view the decisions are in State of Mysore v. Ghousuddin and Anr. , 1972 Cr. LJ. 808 (Mysore High Court), The State v. Bhimrao and Anr. , AIR 1963 Mysore 239, Janni Bibi v. Mohammed Abdul Rahaman, AIR 1955 Andhra 1, Venkatrao v. Rukminibai, AIR 1954 Hyderabad 178, Barot Jetbai v. Baro Gova Natha, AIR 1952 Kutch 85 and Gurnam Singh v. Mt. Datto, AIR 1950 East Punjab 20, lay down that without recording such a finding, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take ex parte proceedings. The ex parte order so passed is void ab initio. The cases taking opposite view are discussed hereinafter. ( 9. ) IN Arun Kumar Suraj Mal Jain v. Chandanbai, 1981 Cr. LJ. 601, the Bombay High Court at Nagpur has held that the proviso of section 126 (2) does not require that the Magistrate must first record reasons for his satisfaction before he decides to proceed ex parte in the matter. It is enough, if such satisfaction namely that the person wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, is writ large on the record and reflected in the final order that is made. See also - State of Mysore vs. Ghousuddin and Anr. (supra ). ( 10. ) IN Niranjan Puri v. Smt. Kesarbai, 1971 MPLJ Note 46, a Single Bench of this Court held that the policy of law appears to be that all evidence in proceedings under section 488 (6) [now 126 (2)] of the Code should as far as possible be taken in presence of the husband or the father unless his personal attendance has been dispensed with. The clause further provides that the Magistrate is empowered to hear and determine the case ex parte provided he is satisfied that the applicant was wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court. The clause further provides that the Magistrate is empowered to hear and determine the case ex parte provided he is satisfied that the applicant was wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court. In this case, when the case was fixed for evidence, the wife was present with her counsel but the husband/father of the wife/child respectively was absent. The Court observed that applicant was absent in spite of notice. He declared him ex parte. A little later the counsel for the husband appeared and prayed for an adjournment on the ground that he was ill and therefore his witnesses were absent. The learned trial Court refused adjournment and passed an ex parte order awarding maintenance to the wife and children. This Court held mat the order in terms does not show that the applicant was wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, nor was there any material on record from which such an inference could reasonably be drawn. Yet in another case Goverdhan v. Smt. Panchkunwar, 1964 MPLJ Note 68, this Court observed that the Magistrate could proceed ex parte if he. was "satisfied" that the non-applicant was "willfully avoiding service" or "wilfully neglected to attend" the Court. The non-appearance simpliciter was not enough. Before Magistrate decided to proceed ex parte, he must find that the non-applicant was neglecting to attend the Court. There must be present on the record some circumstance indicating clearly a wilful neglect. In this case the application for setting aside order was made on the ground that he had become insane which was supported by a medical certificate. This Court set aside ex parte order. ( 11. ) THE ratio of the aforesaid decisions is that the crux of the matter lies in whether the learned magistrate focussed his mind on the question before he proceeded ex parte or not. If he completely overlooks the matter and does not apply his mind, then non-compliance of the condition specified in section 126 (2) may go to the root of the matter. ( 12. ) THE order-sheet of the trial Court in this case nowhere records that the husband wilfully avoided to attend the Court. However this inference is inevitable from the proceedings recorded earlier. On 4-3-1986, the husband did not appear and his counsel alone appeared and prayed for time to file reply. This was granted without any condition. ( 12. ) THE order-sheet of the trial Court in this case nowhere records that the husband wilfully avoided to attend the Court. However this inference is inevitable from the proceedings recorded earlier. On 4-3-1986, the husband did not appear and his counsel alone appeared and prayed for time to file reply. This was granted without any condition. On the next date the husband again remained absent and prayed for time to file the reply. The learned trial Court noted that the applicant was again absent. All the same, request for time to file reply was allowed, in the interest of justice, subject to the payment of Rs. 25/- as costs and the case was fixed for 1-5-1986, for reply and attendance of the applicant. On 1-5-1986, the applicant again did not appear nor he sent any information. After some time his advocate filed reply. The Court noted that the applicant neither appeared nor paid costs. For non-compliance of the Courts orders, the reply cannot be taken on record. He adjourned the case for evidence on 15-5-1986. On this date the applicant, through counsel, made an application supported by medical certificate and prayed for opportunity to produce his witnesses. The learned trial Court granted his prayer subject to the payment of costs to the non-applicants witnesses. The applicant was also directed to remain present on the next date and to participate in further proceedings. On 7-6-1986, the non-applicants alone remained present with their witnesses. The applicant was absent. No one appeared on his behalf. The learned trial Court therefore recorded her statement and those of her witnesses and adjourned the case for arguments on 17-6-1986. On this date the non-applicant alone remained present with her counsel and the applicant again remained absent. The learned trial Court heard the arguments ano passed ex pane order granting maintenance to the non-applicants. ( 13. ) ON taking overall picture of the husbands conduct noted above, the inevitable inference is that the applicant wilfully neglected to attend the Court despite repeated opportunities given to him. The recording of evidence in his absence and passing of ex parte order was, therefore, fully justified. The order cannot be assailed merely because the learned trial Court failed to record his satisfaction that the husband wilfully neglected to attend the Court before recording ex parte evidence and order. ( 14. The recording of evidence in his absence and passing of ex parte order was, therefore, fully justified. The order cannot be assailed merely because the learned trial Court failed to record his satisfaction that the husband wilfully neglected to attend the Court before recording ex parte evidence and order. ( 14. ) LEARNED counsel for the non-applicant also raised objection that the revision is not maintainable without making an application to set aside the ex parte order as envisaged in proviso to section 126 (2) of the Code. Reliance is placed on State of Mysore vs. Ghousuddin and Anr. . (supra) The consistent view has been that the High Court, in exercise of its power of extraordinary jurisdiction cannot, in criminal matters, interfere unless other remedies provided by law have been previously exhausted. See - Gangadhar Sahariya v. Ambika Kumar, AIR 1953 Assam 34, where the law provides a direct remedy, the High Court will not interfere in revision till such remedy has been availed of. See - Taikchand v. Sabir Hussain, AIR 1955 Hyderabad 65. In Arun Kumars case (supra) it was held that the revision petition against ex parte order for maintenance is not tenable, where the petitioner is already pursuing the remedy of setting aside ex parte order; The Single Bench of this Court at Gwalior in Vanita v. Manak Chandra, 1984 MPWN 113 followed Mysore case (supra) and held that the revision was not tenable. No decision taking a contrary view in the matter was brought to my notice. I therefore hold that the revision at the instance of the applicant without exhausting the remedy of setting aside ex parte order available to him under the Code cannot be entertained. ( 15. ) THE revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.