1. On 7th September 1948 an ex parte order for maintenance was passed against the petitioner. He filed an application on 4th January 1949 to set aside that order and also contested the quantum of maintenance. Under the proviso to clause 6 of Section 488, Criminal P. C., an ex parte order may be set aside for good cause shown on application made within three months from the date of the order. This application, which was filed on 4th January 1949, is undoubtedly more than three months from the date of the order. But it is contended by the learned counsel that the period of three months means three months from the date of the knowledge of the order. In short ho wants the word 'knowledge' to be introduced which is not there. I do not see any reason why section should be read with the word 'knowledge' which is not there. If the intention of the Legislature was that it should be three months from the date of the knowledge of the order it would have said so. I, therefore, agree with the lower Court that the application was filed out of time and it is liable to be dismissed.
2. Another fact urged by the learned counsel is that he has shown how ho has to pay certain debts and this circumstance must be taken into consideration in assessing the income of the petitioner. The circumstances which he alleges existed even at the time of the order. It is not as if they came into existence after the order was passed. Change in the circumstances means change in the existence of circumstances and not change in proof of circumstances. The lower Court was, therefore, right in rejecting the petition. I see, therefore, no reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court.
3. The petition is dismissed.