Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.9.86 passed in Misc. Case No.5/86 under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (shortly the Code) directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250.00 per month to opposite party No.1, the petitioner had moved this Court in the instant application under Sec. 482 of the Code. 2. Before appreciating the points raised on behalf of the petitioner the backdrops of the facts are necessary to be looked into. On 15.4.86 the opposite party No.1, wife of the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate under Sec. 125 of the Code praying therein to direct the petitioner to pay Rs. 500.00 per month to her as monthly maintenance allowance. The case of the applicant -opposite party No.1 in her petition, inter alia, was that she was married to the petitioner on 12.5.80 according to the Hindu rites and customs. They were living as husband and wife. Ultimately the wife could know that her husband was having some objectionable relation with some women. The wife never protested to the same in order to maintain peace and harmony in the family of her husband. She, however, was trying to desist her husband from indulging in such unholy affairs being a married man. The petitioner never paid any heed to the said request In May, 1983 opposite party No.1 came to her paternal house and after spending some days there, returned to her husbands place. On her return she was shocked and surprised to find that the petitioner had brought a concubine in his house and was living with her as husband and wife. The petitioner-husband, on seeing his wife, immediately turned her out of his house as a result of which the applicant-wife had no alternative but to reside with her parents at Jamshedpur. The father of the applicant tried his best to send the applicant back to the house of the petitioner but the petitioner on all occasions avoided to take back the applicant to his house. On the ground that the petitioner was not maintaining her and as she was not able to maintain herself having no independent income, the applicant was compelled to file the petitioner for maintenance as aforesaid. 3. Being noticed, the petitioner appeared on 15.7.86 through his lawyer and filed a time petition for filing show cause. On the ground that the petitioner was not maintaining her and as she was not able to maintain herself having no independent income, the applicant was compelled to file the petitioner for maintenance as aforesaid. 3. Being noticed, the petitioner appeared on 15.7.86 through his lawyer and filed a time petition for filing show cause. The said prayer was allowed. Lower Courts records reveal that on that day a copy of the complaint petition was also received by the learned Advocate of the petitioner. Again on 11.8.86 the petitioner was represented by his Advocate and again a prayer was made for some time in order to enable the petitioner to; file show cause. This prayer was also allowed and the case was fixed on 28.8.86. The order dated 28.8.86 shows that on that day though the applicant filed Hazari, the petitioner neither filed any show cause nor any petition for adjournment. The learned Magistrate suomotu granted time till 8.9.86 to the petitioner for filing show cause. Even on 8.9.86 the petitioner neither filed any show cause nor took any step. The said order reads as follows: "The applicant files one petition supported by affidavit for interim maintenance. The opposite party takes no step though the opposite party appeared on 11.8.86 and, thereafter, not taking any step. As such, it appears that the opposite party is not interested to proceed with the case. Put up on 23.9.86 for exparte hearing. This petition for interim maintenance is not pressed and dismissed accordingly. 4. On 23.9.85 the opposite party No.1 was examined as A W. 1 and her evidence was closed. Argument was heard on that date and order was reserved and ultimately passed on 24.9.86. This order dated 24.9.86 has been impugned by the petitioner in this case. 5. Mr. Bhowmik appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the learned Magistrate while passing the aforesaid order had not followed the procedure as laid down under Sec. 126 of the Code. Advancing his argument, he submits-that Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 126 of the Code mandates that all evidences in such proceeding shall be taken in presence of the person against whom the order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made and this mandatory provision has not been complied with by the Magistrate. Advancing his argument, he submits-that Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 126 of the Code mandates that all evidences in such proceeding shall be taken in presence of the person against whom the order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made and this mandatory provision has not been complied with by the Magistrate. It is further contended that proviso to Sub-clause (2) contemplates that before the Magistrate could proceed to hear and determine the case ex-parte, he must record his satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner was wilfully neglecting to attend the Court and this having not done, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, it is contended that even if the petitioner appeared through his lawyer but when the lawyer did not take any step, the Magistrate should have noticed the Advocate before proceeding with the case exparte. 6. The records of the case reveal that notice was accepted to be validly served on the opposite party No.1 on her refusal. Undelivered registered cover with ND is on the record. However, the opposite party No.1 has not appeared. 7. Mr. IN. Gupta appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that from the perusal of the relevant orders of the learned Magistrate it is amply clear that in order to delay the disposal of the maintenance application, the petitioner, in-spite of engaging a lawyer, did not take any step deliberately and, as such, no sympathy should be shown to the petitioner, who on the proved allegation, has refused to maintain his lawfully married wife and forced her to lead a frustrated life. 8. It is now well-settled that the provisions of Sec. 125 of the Code are not intended to provide for full and final determination of the status of personal lives of the parties. The jurisdiction conferred on the Magistrate is more preventive in nature rather than a remedial jurisdiction. The proceedings under this section are not criminal proceedings rather they are in the nature of civil proceedings. Sec. 126 of the Code contemplates procedure for deciding the case under Sec. 125 of the Code. Sub-sec. The jurisdiction conferred on the Magistrate is more preventive in nature rather than a remedial jurisdiction. The proceedings under this section are not criminal proceedings rather they are in the nature of civil proceedings. Sec. 126 of the Code contemplates procedure for deciding the case under Sec. 125 of the Code. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 126 of the Code reads as follows: "All evidences in such proceedings shall be taken in presence of the person - against whom the order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or; when his personal attendance is dispensed within presence of his pleader, shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons cases 9. The argument of Mr. Bhowrnik has to be viewed in the light of proviso to Subsection (2) of Sec. 126 of the Code which reads thus: "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 with 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. 10. The aforesaid proviso indicates the intention of the Legislature in discouraging the husband to frustrate the cause of the wife by either wilfully avoiding to receive the summons or after receiving the summons wilfully neglecting to attend the Court. However, the Legislature has also taken care to protect the interest of the husband on the circumstances when the notice issued either was not received by him for the same was accepted as valid on some misrepresentation of facts. The protection given to the husband under these circumstances is to file an application within three months from the date of the order granting maintenance to the wife with a prayer to set aside the said ex-parte order. 11. I have already noticed that the petitioner, though appeared through a lawyer and made prayer for grant of time for filing show cause, did not file show cause thereafter. Even on 11.6.86 second request for adjournment was made which was also allowed. 11. I have already noticed that the petitioner, though appeared through a lawyer and made prayer for grant of time for filing show cause, did not file show cause thereafter. Even on 11.6.86 second request for adjournment was made which was also allowed. Even then when the petitioner neither filed attendance nor any show cause, the learned Magistrate suomotu adjourned the case by allowing another chance to the petitioner to file his show cause. The said opportunity was not also availed by the petitioner and as such the learned Magistrate was satisfied from the circumstances and conduct that the petitioner was not interested to proceed with the case. The impugned order also shows that the learned Magistrate took note of the fact that inspite of service of notice upon the petitioner, no show cause was filed though time was allowed for the same. 12. In support of his argument Mr. Bhowmik could not cite any decision. On the other hand, in the case of Arun Kumar Surajmal Jain V/s. Chnruktnbai Rupchandra Jain and Others, the Bombay High Court, inter alia, has observed that it is not necessary that the Magistrate must record the reason for his satisfaction before he proceeds to decide the case ex-parte if it is writ large on the records and reflected in the final order. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid findings of the Bombay High Court. From the records of this case, as I have pointed out earlier, it appears that the petitioner deliberately did not take any step before the Magistrate and allowed the case to be decided ex-parte. 13. In this application no averment has been made to the effect that even after appearance through lawyer, the petitioner was prevented by some circumstances, which were beyond his control, either to appear in the Court personally or to instruct his lawyer. On the other hand, the father of the petitioner, who has sworn affidavit in this application, has stated that the petitioner neither before passing of the order dated 24.9.86 (impugned order) nor after passing of the order ever received any notice from the Court informing about the pendency of the case or the petitioner is liable to pay the amount as per the order. This averment is nothing but a blatten lie and cannot be accepted. This averment is nothing but a blatten lie and cannot be accepted. The petitioner did receive the notice before passing of the impugned order as it appears from the lower Courts records and he appeared through his lawyer, prayed for time twice for filing show cause and, as such, a false statement has been made that the petitioner did not receive any notice before passing of the impugned order. 14. About the knowledge of passing of the order, it is the case of the petitioner that he came to know about the same on 20.2.88 through his father and his father was informed by one Sahan Patan, the grand-father of opposite party No.1. It is stated that after coming to know about the case the petitioner deputed a man to inquire about the matter at Jamshedpur and then only it transpired that the order of maintenance had been passed on 24.9.86. The petition is absolutely silent as to on which date his father was informed by Sohan Patan and when he deputed a man to inquire about the same. 15. On the other hand, statement has been made that the certified copy of the order was obtained on 23.2.88 by the petitioners father which he received on 24.2.88 through the clerk of a lawyer and, thereafter, the father of the petitioner on 2.3.88 went to the place of the petitioner along with the same and the petitioner carne to know of the case and also about the order of maintenance. Here also, the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court deliberately. If his father received the certified copy of the order through the clerk of an Advocate on 24.2.88, there was no occasion for the petitioners father to obtain the certified copy before that date i.e. on 23.2.88. In my opinion, all these concocted facts have been made out before this Court to show that the limitation for filing an application for setting aside the exparte order, was already expired which compelled the petitioner to move this Court in this quashing application. In my considered opinion, this sort of misleading facts cannot be entertained by this Court. 16. The matter may be viewed in another angle also. In my considered opinion, this sort of misleading facts cannot be entertained by this Court. 16. The matter may be viewed in another angle also. Even assuming that the petitioner came to know about the passing of the impugned order after expiry of the time for filing the application for setting aside the impugned order, even then the petitioner could have filed the said petition along-with a prayer to condone the delay. It is also well settled that the aggrieved person may invoke Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay and when Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked, then there can be no justification to stretch the word and to import something which is not there in law. In the case of Makdhum Ali V/s. Mostt. Narsing Bano and Anr.2, the Delhi High Court has held that when the husband fails to peruse the remedy or setting aside-the exparte order as contemplated under proviso to Sub-clause (2) of Sec. 126 of the Code, the High Court will not interfere either in revision or under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. specially when the husband was found appearing and disappearing before the Magistrate during the heaving. On the same analogy, in the present case it can be held that the petitioner, in order to frustrate the cause of the wife deliberately neither took any step during the proceeding nor filed any application for setting aside the said ex-parte order within time. The impugned order is dated 24.9.86 and the petitioner finding that revision against the said order is time barred, after about two years has flied this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code in order to avoid a legal bar. In my opinion, the same cannot be entertained. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in my opinion, there is no merit in this quashing application and, as such, the same is dismissed. The interim order dated 27.5.88 as well as 30.4.91 are vacated. The office is directed to send a copy or this order to the learned Magistrate forthwith along-with the records of this case.