UKHC010179692025 2026:UHC:6078 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/769/2025 Hargovind Singh --Revisionist Versus Poonam Sagar --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Geetanjali Dhami, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Vinayak Pant, Advocate for the respondents. 2. By means of the present Criminal Revision, the revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 23.04.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Case No.295 of 2022, whereby the learned Family Court has directed the revisionist to pay a total sum of ₹13,000/- per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, i.e., ₹7,000/- per month to respondent no.1 (wife) and ₹3,000/- per month each to respondent nos.2 and 3 (minor children). 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned judgment and order has been passed ex-parte, without affording the revisionist an adequate opportunity of hearing. It is contended that the revisionist has sufficient grounds to contest the proceedings on merits and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the UKHC010179692025 2026:UHC:6078 present Criminal Revision. He submits that the impugned order having been passed ex- parte, the appropriate statutory remedy available to the revisionist is to file an application before the learned Family Court under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking recall of the ex- parte order. It is submitted that without exhausting the said efficacious alternative remedy, the present revision is not maintainable. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. This Court finds that the impugned order has admittedly been passed ex-parte in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. specifically empowers the Court to set aside an ex-parte order upon the person against whom such order has been made showing good cause for his non- appearance. Thus, the statute itself provides an effective and efficacious remedy before the very Court which passed the impugned order. 6. In view of the aforesaid statutory remedy, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revisionist ought to avail the remedy available under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. before invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Since an efficacious alternative remedy is available, the present Criminal Revision is not maintainable at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy. (Alok Mahra, J.) 20.07.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20ddd b7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB9874 46351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.07.20 17:16:30 +05'30'