SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010099722025 CRLR/413/2025 Ajay Singh Rawat --Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Kaushal Sah Jagati, Advocate for the revisionist. 2. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. alongwith Mr. Vikas Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 4. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the ex-parte judgment and order 10.06.2022 passed by the Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 175 of 2019, Smt. Munni Rawat @ Moni Rawat and Another Vs. Ajay Singh Rawat, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby, the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 9000/- per month to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 as interim maintenance. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Case No. 6 of 2023 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 175 of 2019, whereby, the application of the revisionist filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, for condoning the delay and setting aside the ex- parte judgment and order dated 10.06.2022 was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, at the very outset, submits that the present revision is not maintainable against ex-parte order, as an ex- parte maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must first be challenged before the Trial Court/Family Court under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. and without availing this statutory remedy, a revision before the High Court is not maintainable. To support his case, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 2099 of 2026 and Criminal Revision No. 2500 of 2026. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the revisionist has an option u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. to move an application for recall of ex-parte order before the learned trial court and the court has to consider for recall of the order as provided u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed, being not maintainable. 9. However, the revisionist is at liberty to move an application before the learned trial court within a period of 30 days from today for recall of ex-parte order u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C., which shall be heard and decided by the learned court concerned in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties without allowing unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. (Alok Mahra J.) 18.08.2026 Ujjwal