A. K. DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) THE instant Revisional Application by the petitioner-husband is directed against the orders dated 27. 2. 89, 5. 1. 91 and 21. 9. 91 passed by the Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate at Arambagh, District Hooghly, in Misc. Case No. 28/88 J. R. 2/89 before him on the grounds made out therein. ( 2 ) THE opposite-party No. 2-wife (hereinafter referred to as wife) had filed an application before Learned Magistrate against the petitioner-husband (hereinafter referred to as husband) for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shortened into Code) on the ground that the latter had been refusing and neglecting to maintain her. On the said application being filed, the Learned Magistrate had directed issue of notice by his order dated 16. 7. 88 upon the husband fixing a number of dates for service return. The service return not having been received, the Learned Magistrate by his order dated 4,1. 89 had directed the wife to take steps for serving notice upon the husband by Registered Post with A. D. But the service return there of not having still been received, the Learned Magistrate by his subsequent order dated 13. 2. 89 had considered the notice to be duly served in terms of the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19-A of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure for the reasons recorded therein, and had fixed the case for ex-parte hearing on 27. 2. 89. The wife's application under Section 125 of the Code had thereupon been allowed ex-parte by the Learned Magistrate by his order dated 27. 2. 89. And, by his subsequent order dated 5. 1. 91, the Learned Magistrate, upon an application by the wife praying for passing necessary orders for getting arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs. 6,600/- only for the period from 15. 9. 89 to 31. 12. 90, had again directed issue of notice upon the husband fixing 16. 3. 91 for service return. ( 3 ) THE husband coming to know of the aforesaid impugned ex-parte orders had filed an application before the Learned Magistrate on 15. 3. 91 for setting aside the aforesaid ex-parte order dated 27. 2. 89, which was eventually rejected by the Learned Magistrate by his impugned order dated 21. 9. 3. 91 for service return. ( 3 ) THE husband coming to know of the aforesaid impugned ex-parte orders had filed an application before the Learned Magistrate on 15. 3. 91 for setting aside the aforesaid ex-parte order dated 27. 2. 89, which was eventually rejected by the Learned Magistrate by his impugned order dated 21. 9. 91 for the reasons recorded therein on the ground of limitation relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Amar Guha alias Amal Kumar Guha v. State of West Bengal and Anr. , 1988 C. Cr. L. R. (Cal.) 272. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned orders so passed by the Learned Magistrate the husband has moved this Court in Revision on the grounds made out therein, mainly on the grounds that the notice in the relevant case had never been served upon him and he had no knowledge of the aforesaid ex-parte order dated 27. 2. 89 passed by the Learned Magistrate. ( 5 ) UPON hearing the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner-husband and perusal of the materials on record it clearly occurs to me that the notice in the relevant case under Section 125 of the Code had not been served upon him, as would be evident from the certified copies of the order-sheet on record. The service return of the notice issued to the petitioner-husband not having been received, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 4. 1. 89 had directed the petitioner to take steps for service of notice upon him by Registered post with A. D. The service return not having still been received, the learned Magistrate had considered the notice to have been duly served on application of the provisions of the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19-A of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure by his order dated 13. 2. 89 for the reasons recorded therein. To that I would at once note with a minute of dissent that the Learned Magistrate had gone grievously wrong and miserably astray in applying the aforesaid provision of the Code of Civil Procedure in the relevant proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There being no such analogous provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the aforesaid order dated 13. 2. There being no such analogous provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the aforesaid order dated 13. 2. 89 passed by the Learned Magistrate considering the notice to have been duly served for the reasons recorded therein cannot be sustained in law. ( 6 ) THE Learned Magistrate in his impugned order dated 27. 2. 89 had merely observed that the notice of the relevant case had been sent to the husband by Registered Post. He having not appeared before the Court, the case was heard ex-parte. There is not the merest and faintest whisper in the aforesaid impugned order by the Learned Magistrate that the husband was willingly avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court. There being no indication in the aforesaid impugned order that the learned Magistrate was satisfied that there had been such wilful conduct on the part of the husband, it was incompetent for him to pass the aforesaid ex-parte order dated 27. 2. 89, the way he did, in view of the stringent provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the Code. The said impugned order can neither be sustained in law as such. ( 7 ) THE Learned Magistrate by his subsequent impugned order dated 21. 9. 91 had rejected the husband's application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 27. 2. 89 merely on the ground that the same had been filed beyond three months from the date of the order dated 27. 2. 89 for the reasons recorded therein, relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Amal Guha alias Amal Kumar Guha v. State of West Bengal and Anr. , 1988 C. Cr. L. R. (Cal.) 272. I am, however, in complete agreement with a subsequent Single Bench decision of this Court in Shri Satrughna Adak v. Sonali Adak Nee Tung, 1993 C. Cr. L. R, (Cal.) 254 that the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench would be applicable when the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband was wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court for much the same reasons discussed by the Learned Single Judge in the aforesaid decision. L. R, (Cal.) 254 that the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench would be applicable when the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband was wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court for much the same reasons discussed by the Learned Single Judge in the aforesaid decision. I am also at one with the Learned Single Judge that there is no absolute prohibition of the phenomenon of knowledge in computing the period of limitation under Section 126 of the Code, and that an application under Sub-section (2) thereof can be preferred within three months from the date of knowledge of the order; and that there is nothing either in Section 126 of the Code to expressly bar the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The certified copies of the order-sheet on record, as already indicated above, would at once make clear that the service return of notice upon the husband in the relevant case under Section 125 of the Code had not been received, and the notice was wrongly considered by the Learned Magistrate to have been duly served by his order dated 13. 2. 89 on the application of the provisions of the proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19a of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was not applicable to the relevant proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. That being so, the Learned Magistrate clearly appears to have grossly erred in rejecting the husband's application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 27. 2. 89 merely on the ground that the same had not been filed within three months from the date of the aforesaid impugned order (dated 27. 2. 89 ). For the reasons indicated, an application under Sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the Code for setting aside an ex-parte order could very well be preferred within three months from the date of knowledge of the order. That being so, the aforesaid subsequent impugned order dated 21. 9. 91 passed by the Learned Magistrate cannot clearly be sustained in. It would also seem significant and observable to note in this context that a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Md. That being so, the aforesaid subsequent impugned order dated 21. 9. 91 passed by the Learned Magistrate cannot clearly be sustained in. It would also seem significant and observable to note in this context that a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Md. Naim Siddiqui v. Smt. Sultana Khatoon, had set aside an ex-parte order of a Magistrate and of the High Court under Section 125 of the Code, and had remanded the matter for being disposed of afresh by the Magistrate under Article 136 of the Constitution of India on being satisfied that the husband was not served with notice. The certified copies of the order-sheet on record would clearly show that the Learned Magistrate himself had recorded a number of orders to the effect that the service return of notice upon the husband had not been received. The record being, what it is, there could be no mistaking that the notice in the relevant case under Section 125 of the Code by the wife had not been served upon the husband. The ex-parte order dated 27. 2. 89 passed by the learned Magistrate is thus liable to be set aside and the relevant matter is required to be heard and disposed of afresh by the Learned Magistrate, in the aforesaid circumstances. The subsequent impugned order dated 21/9/1991 passed by the Learned Magistrate rejecting the husband's application for setting aside the aforesaid ex-parte order could neither be sustained, in such circumstances. ( 8 ) IN the view of the discussions above, the instant Revisional application should clearly succeed, as it must. In the nature of the aforesaid relevant orders passed by the Learned Magistrate in the relevant proceedings it also seems to me to be a fit case where the Court should interfere on its own motion in view of the illegality, impropriety and incorrectness therein, as recorded above. The Revisional Application accordingly succeeds. The impugned orders dated 27/2/1983, 5/1/1991 and 21/1/1991 passed by the Learned Magistrate be all set aside. ( 9 ) THE matter is remanded back to the Learned Magistrate for being disposed of afresh after giving both the parties all reasonable opportunities of being heard in the matter. The Revisional Application accordingly succeeds. The impugned orders dated 27/2/1983, 5/1/1991 and 21/1/1991 passed by the Learned Magistrate be all set aside. ( 9 ) THE matter is remanded back to the Learned Magistrate for being disposed of afresh after giving both the parties all reasonable opportunities of being heard in the matter. Since the relevant application under Section 125 of the Code had been filed by the wife in 1988, the Learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the hearing with utmost expedition, and shall seek to dispose of the same, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. No further notice need be served upon the husband. The Learned Magistrate shall, however, cause notice to be served upon the wife before the hearing of the matter.