IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.97 of 2003 Ashok Bhardwaj … Revisionist Versus Principal Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal & Others … Respondents Dated: February 22, 2010 Sri Pramod Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State None for the respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 03.07.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Crl. Case No.2 of 2003. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2-Smt. Urmila Bhardwaj moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal against the revisionist claiming maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month. On that application, the court below sent the notices to the revisionist through registered post but he did not appear before the court, therefore, the case was proceeded against him ex parte and the court below vide order dated 26.9.2002 passed an ex parte order directing the revisionist to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to the respondent no.2 from the date of application along with costs. Arrears were also directed to be paid within three months. Against that ex parte order dated 26.9.2002, the revisionist moved an application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. before the court below to recall the order dated 26.9.2002. On that application, the court below vide order dated 3.7.2003 passed a conditional order that the order dated 26.9.2002 will only be recalled only if revisionist would pay half of the amount due towards maintenance i.e. Rs.15,000/- along with Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent no.2 by 15.7.2003 failing which the application moved by the revisionist u/s 126(2) would stand dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 3.7.2003, the revisionist has come up before this Court. In the present case, ex parte order for maintenance was passed on 26.9.2002 on which the court below issued the notices to the revisionist. The notices were sent twice through registered post, however he refused to accept the same. Even at the time when the notice u/s 125(3) was sent by the court below to the revisionist, the notice was not received by him and on 24.6.2003 itself, the revisionist appeared before the court below. The court below therefore rightly came to the conclusion that the conduct of the revisionist, that he was unaware about the filing of the original suit, is unacceptable. The application u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. was also barred by limitation. Even then the court below directed that in case the half of the amount due on the revisionist till 25.6.2003, which comes to Rs.15,000/- along with Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses, is paid by the revisionist to the respondent no.2 by 15.7.2003, the ex parte order would be set aside and in case of failure of this condition, the application moved by the revisionist u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. would automatically come to an end. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order dated 03.07.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal. For the reasons recorded above, the revision devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 3.7.2003 passed by the court below is affirmed. (Dharam Veer, J.) February 22, 2010 Rajeev Dang