IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.20 of 2007 MD. ENAMUL HAQUE Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 10. 1.9.2008. This application has been filed against the order dated 30.8.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnia in Case No.M-3 of 2006 thereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is ready to keep the opposite party no.2 with full dignity. It is further submission that the petitioner is unemployed having no income to pay the maintenance. The 3rd submission is that the order has been passed ex-parte without giving any notice to the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that the petitioner intentionally after receiving his summons in person avoided to appear in the case. Ultimately, the case was heard ex-parte by the court below. It is further submitted that the petitioner ought to have filed the petition under section 126(2) for setting aside the ex-parte decree before the lower court. The petitioner cannot file revision without exhorting remedy before the lower court. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties and also provision of section 126 Cr.P.C. It is true that there is provision under section 126 Cr.P.C. for filing a petition in - 2 - N.H./ order to set aside the ex-parte order. However, revision is not barred. The party may directly approach the High Court under revisional jurisdiction. It appears from the record that the service of notice was accepted in person but in spite of that he did not appear and contest the case. Thus, there is no rebuttal of the evidence of the petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order it would appear that there is no illegality or impropriety. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )