This is an application under section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the orders dated 20.2.87 and 8.5.87 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Nalbari in Misc. Case No. 32 of 1986 and order dated 5.8.87 passed by the Sessions Judge Nalbari in CM No, 16 (N-2 ) 1987. 2. Facts,-On 20.2.87, the learned Magistrate passed an exparte order directing the petitioner to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance of the opposite party and her child. The learned Magistrate fixed Rs. 200/- for the mother and Rs. 100/- for the child. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the exparte order. The learned Magistrate rejected the petition. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed Criminal Motion No. 16 (N-2) of 1987 in the Court of the Sessions Judge Nalbari. The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition on 5.8.87. Hence this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the opposite party Mr. J. Deb has argued that the petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 399(3), Cr. P.C. He has referred to me a decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR 1983 SC 67 . In that case the Supreme Court has held the scope, ambit and range of section 482 is quite different from the powers conferred by the present Code under the provisions of section 397. It may be that in some cases there may be overlapping but such cases would be few and far between. It is well settled that the inherent powers under section 482 of the present Code can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. Further, power being an extra-ordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly. 4. In my judgment, the decision of the Supreme Court does not show that the High Court has no jurisdiction at all under section 481 in such a case to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Therefore, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under section 482, Cr.P.C. in suitable or exceptional cases. 5. Therefore, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under section 482, Cr.P.C. in suitable or exceptional cases. 5. The question then is, - Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 shall be invoked ? 6. Mr. T.S. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that under proviso to section 126, Cr.P.C. the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the exparte order as the records does not disclose that he was satisfied that the petitioner was wilfully neglecting to attend the Court. 7. Under sub-section (2) of section 126, Cr.P.C. all the evidence shall be taken in 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. However, under proviso to sub-section (2) of section 126, 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 ease exparte. The words "wilfully neglecting" employed in section 126, are of great significance. It is not enough if the person against whom the exparte order is to be made happens to be absent on a particular day when the case is called on for hearing as that will be only his physical absence. But, the question whether the person is wilfully neglecting to attend the Court is an inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. The satisfaction of the Magistrate may be subjective satisfaction. Therefore, the Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to proceed exparte only when he is satisfied that the person is wilfully neglecting to attend the Court. This view of mine finds support from the decisions in State vs. Bhimrao, AIR 1963 Mysore 239 and Kalika vs. Smt. Jagdei, 1975 Cri LJ 465. 8. Turning to the case on hand, the record does not disclose that the Magistrate was satisfied that petitioner had wilfully neglected to attend the Court. Therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed to hear and determine the case exparte. The default or mistake of the Court in the present case will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court as it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed to hear and determine the case exparte. The default or mistake of the Court in the present case will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court as it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The petitioner has no alternative remedy. In such a situation, I am inclined to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and quashed. The case is remanded to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Nalbari for disposal of the matter afresh. 9. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the petitioner shall pay interim maintenance to Srimati Kusum Deka and her minor child Bhumidhar Deka a monthly all­owance of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred) during the pendency of the case before the Magistrate from the date of application. The petitioner shall pay the arrears in six (6) instalments. If the opposite party fails to establish her right, she shall refund the money received by her. With the said observation and directions the petition is allowed and disposed of. Parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate Nalbari on 14.11.88. The learned Magistrate shall dispose of the main case within three (3) months.