IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1315 of 2009 Naveen Prakash @ Baiju Sah son of Bihari Sah, resident of village- Kothiya, Dumari, P.S.- Bangra, District- Samastipur. ……………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Smt. Basanti Devi, wife of Naveen Prakash @ Baiju Sah, resident of village- Kothiya, Dumari, P.S.- Bangra, District- Samastipur. ……..Opposite Parties ----------- 3. 30.09.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur in Maintenance Case No.88/2007 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month for the maintenance of his wife and a minor son. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to lead conjugal life with his wife, opposite party no.2. He has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the State submits that it appears from the impugned order 2 that it has been passed ex-parte as the petitioner did not turn up and he has been evading the court process and the court proceeding. He has further submitted that the petitioner may file petition before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court under the provisions of Section 126 (2) of the Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the State is correct. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file petition under Section 126 (2) of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)