Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89713 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1539 of 2024 Revisionist :- Adesh Rajput Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Brijendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Notice issued to opposite party No.2 has been served but none appeared on her behalf. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist 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 set aside the order dated 2.1.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Case No.355 of 2021 (Smt. Laxmi Devi Vs. Adesh Rajpur), under section 125 Cr.P.C, Police Station Bilsanda District Pilibhit. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that an application under section 125 Cr.P.C was filed by the opposite party No.2/ wife against him which was allowed exparte vide order dated 2.1.2024 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs.6000/- per month. No any notice was served on the revisionist that was the reason he could not appear before learned trial court but only on the basis of presumption service was deemed to be sufficient and the order was passed exparte, therefore, he request to set aside the order dated 2.1.2024 giving an opportunity of hearing and then to pass appropriate order. Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the revisionist may have an option to move an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C before learned trial court for setting aside the order passed exparte which will be decided in accordance with law. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A, perusal of record and the order passed by learned trial court dated 2.1.2024 it appears that the notice by ordinary and registered mail was sent to the revisionist which was served even though he did not appear before learned trial court, as a result the case was proceeded exparte and order in question was passed. Since the revisionist says that there was no service of notice on him that was the reason he could not appear before the learned trial court. therefore, in my considered opinion an opportunity of hearing be also given to the revisionist and then the order be passed. In this regard the revisionist is directed to move an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C within a period of two weeks from today that will be heard and decided by the learned trial court in view proviso under section 126(2) Cr.P.C. after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 G.S Digitally signed by :- GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad