JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None present for the respondents despite service. 2. The present misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.12.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Loonkaransar directing ex-parte proceedings to be undertaken against the petitioner and also against the order dated 1.8.2008 whereby he has ex-parte rejected the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings undertaken against him and the date fixed in that application was 24.10.2003. The file was not taken up on that date but was taken up instead on 13.12.2003 and without intimation to the petitioner about the said date, the matter was decided in absentia of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings which has been rejected by the order dated 1.8.2008. 4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the respondents on 6.2.1992 on which date, they were aged about 2 years and 4 years respectively. Thus, it is submitted that both the respondents have attained majority in the year 2008 and 2006 respectively. Thus, there could not have been any justification for grant of maintenance to the respondents. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate was wrong in proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner by changing the date for which there was no intimation to the petitioner. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the impugned orders. 6. In the order dated 1.8.2008, the learned Magistrate has observed that the respondents are aged 11 and 13 years respectively. Apparently, the said finding is erroneous because the said age of the respondents could be referred to the date of filing of the application dated 30.5.2002 but when the order was passed, definitely the respondents had crossed the age of majority. 7. In the opinion of this court, whenever a date fixed by the Court is sought to be changed and some proceedings adverse to the interest of a party are being undertaken on the changed date, then obviously, the person who is affected by the change in date, has to be intimated of the same. 7. In the opinion of this court, whenever a date fixed by the Court is sought to be changed and some proceedings adverse to the interest of a party are being undertaken on the changed date, then obviously, the person who is affected by the change in date, has to be intimated of the same. That apart, there could not have been any justification for the learned Magistrate to have altered the date already fixed in the matter. When the date fixed in the matter before the trial court was on 24.10.2003 and as the record shows, the matter could not be taken up on that date and thereafter, it was taken up subsequently on 13.12.2003. There is no material available on the record to show that the petitioner was intimated about the said change in the date by the learned Magistrate. 8. Resultantly, the present misc. petition succeeds. The order dated 1.8.2008 is quashed and the petitioner is permitted to appear before the learned Magistrate and raise his contention regarding the respondents not being entitled to claim maintenance as having gained majority/marriage. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 15.2.2012. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate shall proceed to hear the petitioner and the respondents after giving notice to them and then decide the contentions raised in accordance with law.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition Allowed. *******