Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131001 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2792 of 2025 Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Manju Lata Verma,Ram Sumer Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the revisionist is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to allow this revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj in Maintenance Case No. 317 of 2023 (Priyanka Prajapati Vs. Ajay Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as order dated 05.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 919 of 2024, under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., Police Station Paniyara, District Maharaganj. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case, an ex-parte order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was passed against the revisionist vide order dated 27.2.2024 fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of wife. No notice was served on the revisionist personally but on the basis of endorsement of process server, the court proceeded ex-parte. The revisionist mentioned this fact in his application under Section 5 Limitation Act filed with the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. but it was rejected vide order dated 05.04.2025. In this way, the order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was passed by the learned trial court without giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist who had no knowledge about the proceedings of the case. The learned trial court did not consider all these facts but rejected the application under Section 5 Limitation Act with an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. Further submitted that the opposite party no. 2, the wife is living with one Sandeep Nishad regarding which he filed a Case No. 79/2023, under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act which was decided ex-parte vide order dated 11.07.2025 in favour of revisionist and he proved the allegation of adultery against the wife and on that ground, the decree was passed. In this way, the revisionist cannot be said to be liable to make payment of maintenance since application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided ex-parte, therefore request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court dated 05.04.2025 and allow the revision and also set aside the ex-parte order passed on the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned A.G.A. oppose the prayer as aforesaid. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record and order passed by learned trial court, it appears that an ex-parte order dated 27.02.2024 was passed against the revisionist allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. fixing the amount of maintenance Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of wife. In the same court, a case under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act was also pending as Case No. 79 of 2023 in which the revisionist made allegations against the wife that she was living with third person namely Sandeep Nishad and proved the allegation on the basis of which the learned trial court passed the decree in favour of husband/revisionist against the wife vide order dated 11.07.2025. The learned trial court did not decide the issue of adultery, first in the case under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act when the case was before the same court and same Presiding Officer. The order in question dated 27.02.2024 was passed ex-parte on the basis of notice being received by the revisionist, though he stated in his application under Section 5 Limitation Act that it was not served on him but endorsement was written by the process server and he had no knowledge of the case. The learned trial court must have taken lenient view while deciding the application under Section 5 Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. but learned trial court has technically passed the order dated 05.04.2025 and rejected the application under Section 5 Limitation Act. In this way, the revisinist has been deprived of opportunity of hearing in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. decided by learned trial court on 27.02.2024. In such a situation it is expedient to direct the revisionist to approach the learned trial court and move a fresh application for recall of order dated 05.04.2025 under Section 5 Limitation Act within a period of 15 days from today and the learned trial court will recall the aforesaid order by imposing reasonable cost for delay in filing the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. with an application under Section 5 Limitation Act and then after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, pass the order on an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. within a period of 30 days without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Accordingly, the present revision is disposed of finally. In the meantime, the order dated 27.02.2024 will not be given effect. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Anurag Singh Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad