Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62351 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2210 of 2024 Revisionist :- Manish Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- S.S. Rajput Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,G.A.,Shireesh Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Criminal Revision No.1064 of 2024 is disconnected from this case. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party as will as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. This Crl. Revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the the order dated 23.2.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal, Judge, Family Court No.1, Aligarh in Criminal Case No.189 of 2023 rejecting the application paper No.4Ka under section 126(2) Cr.P.C for restoring the ex-parte order dated 15.11.2022 passed in Case N0. 515 of 2021, under section 125 Cr.P.C. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case the opposite party No.2 is wife and 3 and 4 are minor children of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the marriage between opposite party No.2 and the revisionist was solemnized in the year 2006. The opposite party No.2 lived with him till 2021, after that without any reasonable excuse she left the house of the revisionist and went to live her Mayaka. She filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C which was decided ex-parte vide order dated 15.11.2022 and the amount for maintenance was fixed Rs.10,000/- per month for wife and Rs.8000/- per month for each child, in total Rs.26,000/- per month. Notice was never served on the revisionist that was the reason he could not participate in the proceedings before learned trial court. When he come to know about ex-parte order, he filed an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C before the learned trial court which was rejected vide order dated 23.2.2024 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist in the case under section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court did not consider the fact that the notice was never served on him and the order was passed ex-parte without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. The order passed by learned trial court dated 23.2.2024 cannot be said lawful, therefore, request to set aside the order and allow the revision and also to direct the learned trial court to decide the application under section 125 Cr.P.C after giving opportunity of hearing to the revisionist also. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the revisionist was served notice by registered post even he did not attend the proceedings that was the reason the case was proceeded ex-parte and maintenance was allowed. He did not pay any amount to the wife and children as maintenance but for making their harassment, he filed an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C which was rejected by the learned trial court while considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the learned trial court dated 23.2.2024 and dated 15.11.2022. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court dated 15.11.2022 an application under section 125 Cr.P.C and order dated 23.2.2024 passed on an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C, it appears that the learned trial court has proceeded the case ex-parte on the basis of postal endorsement that was sent at the village address, though he was living at his working place at Ghaziabad. When on 22.1.2023 the notice was sent to the revisionist by courier and he received it then he came to know about the ex-parte order passed by learned trial court dated 15.11.2022 and he moved the application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C before the learned trial court which was rejected by order dated 23.2.2024. It shows that the revisionist had no knowledge about the application under section 125 Cr.P.C that was the reason he could not attend the court proceedings and as soon as he came to know about the fact of ex-parte order on receiving notice by courier he moved an application before the learned trial court under section 126(2) Cr.P.C promptly. In case opportunity of hearing is not given to the revisionist it will be against principle of natural justice, therefore, he be provided an opportunity of hearing before passing any order against him. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the order dated 15.11.2022 on an application under section 125 Cr.P.C and order dated 23.2.2024 passed by learned trial court on an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C are liable to be set aside. As a result both the orders dated 15.11.2022 and order dated 23.2.2024 are hereby set aside. Since the opposite party Nos.2, 3 and 4 those are wife and minor children are living separate from him from the year 2021 and no amount has been paid by the revisionist as maintenance, therefore, the revisionist is directed to make payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to the wife within a period of fifteen days and then continue to pay the amount Rs.8000/- to the wife and Rs.6000/- for each child, total Rs.20,000/- per month as interim maintenance. The learned trial court is also directed to decide the case under section 125 Cr.P.C as expeditiously as possible without granting any un-necessary adjournment to either of the parties. Accordingly, this criminal revision is disposed of. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 G.S Digitally signed by :- GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad