HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5498 of 2026 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. 1. Heard Sri Jaideep Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the instant criminal revision has been preferred with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause. The relief mentioned in the prayer clause of the revision is delineated below:- "It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order of maintenance dated 01-06- 2026 passed by Principal Judge (Family Court), Mahoba in maintenance Case No. 338 of 2023, (Smt. Anjali Vs. Ajay Lakhera) under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Mahoba, District-Mahoba with all its consequential effects, during the pendency of the present revision before this Hon'ble Court. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order of maintenance dated 01-06-2026 passed by Principal Judge (Family Court), Mahoba in maintenance Case No. 338 of 2023, (Smt. Anjali Vs. Ajay Lakhera) under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Mahoba, District-Mahoba, during the pendency of the present revision before this Hon'ble Court." 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that against the ex parte final order dated 01.06.2026 passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey, Jaideep Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ajay Lakhera .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) present revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that by the ex parte order, the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was finally allowed. He further submits that there is a provision for filing an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. for recalling the ex parte order. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that he does not want to press this case on merit and he shall raise all the grievances by filing an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. before the trial court. 5. Shri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. assisted the Court and submitted that there is a provision under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. for filing an application for recalling the ex parte order and the same can be availed before the trial court, therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. For ready reference Section 126 Cr.P.C. is being delineated below :- "126. Procedure. (1) Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in any district- (a) where he is, or (b) where he or his wife resides, or (c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child. (2) All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases: 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 CRLR No. 5498 of 2026 2 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. (3) The Court in dealing with applications under section 125 shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just." 6. Learned A.G.A. further submits that this aspect has already been decided by this Court in Criminal Revision Defective No.141 of 2026 (Anup Kumar Vs. Smt. Pratibha Kushwaha and others) vide order dated 30.03.2026 and a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.2099 of 2026 (Abhishek Gond vs. State of U.P. and others) vide order dated 01.04.2026, has also held that as per Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., against an ex parte order passed in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the remedy available to the revisionist is to move an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. before the concerned family court. 7. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed at this stage on the ground of maintainability as there is an alternative, efficacious remedy available under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) B.N.S.S. for filing an application before the trial court and the revisionist is at liberty to avail the said remedy, if so advised. September 9, 2026 K.Tiwari CRLR No. 5498 of 2026 3 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad