Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125258 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6133 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sohit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Indra Narayan,Rajat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mandeep Singh Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to allow this revision and set aside the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr, in Case No.1623 of 2024 ( Sohit Kumar Vs. Smt. Alka Devi). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the marriage was performed in the year 2021. The opposite party No.2/wife left her matrimonial house without any sufficient reason and filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C before the learned trial court which was decided exparte by order dated 16.4.2024, against which he filed recall application under section 145(2) BNSS with an application under section 5 of Limitation Act which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 29.10.2024, therefore, request to set aside the order passed exparte and the order on application under section 5 of Limitation Act and to provide an opportunity of hearing and then to decide the application under section 125 Cr.P.C on merit. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the notice was served on the revisionist even though he did not appear before the learned trial court that was the reason it was decided exparte and the application under section 5 of Limitation Act was also rejected with an application for recall under section 145(2) BNSS. There is no illegality in the order passed by learned trial court. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State, perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 16.4.2024 on an application under section 125 Cr.P.C and order dated 29.10.2024 on an application under section 5 of Limitation Act and section 145(2) BNSS, it appears that the order dated 16.4.2024 was passed exparte and an application under section 5 of Limitation Act was rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that the notice was served on the revisionist, even though he did not appear before the learned trial court. On the other hand, the revisionist contends that no notice was served on him but service of notice was assumed by the learned trial court and exparte order was passed. He came to know about the order when recovery order was issued against him under section 128 Cr.P.C. Since the order dated 16.4.2024 has been passed exparte without giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist, therefore, it is expedient in the interest of justice that he should also be provided an opportunity of hearing before passing any order under section 125 Cr.P.C against him, therefore, this Court is of the view that the orders dated 16.4.2024 and 29.10.2024 be set aside by imposing reasonable costs and then afresh order be passed on the application under section 125 Cr.P.C after giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist also. Thus the orders dated 16.4.2024 and 29.4.2024 are hereby set aside for cost of Rs.20,000/- that will be paid to the opposite party No.2 and the revisionist will continue to pay Rs.3000/- per month as interim maintenance to wife. The learned trial court is also directed to decide the application under section 125 Cr.P.C afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 G.S Digitally signed by :- GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad