HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4537 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the present revision and set aside the impugned judgment order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 01, Muzaffar Nagar in Case No. 365/11 of 2023, (Smt. Tarannum Vs. Azad @ Aayan) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sikheda, District Muzaffar Nagar by which the learned court below has awarded Rs. 6,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 02 as maintenance amount and further prays to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid order. 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 by the learned trial court by order dated 21.05.2025 fixing the amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of wife. He further submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to the revisionist, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court dated 21.05.2025 and allow the revision. 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 the learned trial court who will pass appropriate order. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Manoj Kumar Tripathi, Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Azad Alias Aayan .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) of record, it appears that the order in question was passed ex-parte by the learned trial court vide order dated 21.05.2025 fixing the amount Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance against the revisionist regarding which he has an option to move an application for recall under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145 (2) B.N.S.S. Proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. which is as under: "Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper." In view of the proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) BNSS the revisionist is directed to file an recall application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) BNSS before the learned trial court within a period of 30 days from today that shall be heard and decided by the learned trial court after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with law without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of finally. September 17, 2025 Suraj Srivastav CRLR No. 4537 of 2025 2 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad