‘\ é?) HRGH COURT OF CHHAT‘HSGARH, BILASPUR \ CHMINAL REVESION NO. 4§0l2011 APPUCANT Ramswaroop, S/o Ghurau Ram, Aged R/s about Tohadikapa, 27 years, Sub Agriculturist, Tahsil Burg Nadghai, (CG). Tahsi} Nadghat, District VERsus RE$PONBENTS 1. Prem Narayan, Aged about 16 months, 8/0 Ramswaroap! Minor 2 through Rajiaxmi, Va“ Aged mother about21 Rajlaxmi, years, W10 Ramswaroop, House wffe, G N SUNH. KUEMR $§NHA J. Heard on admissEon. ‘ Applécant— Ramswaroap is aggrieved b 2102.20’H passed in Misc. Criminal Principe! Judge, Famny Coud, Berg (Link Court, Bernetera). By the impugned order, the Family Coud has awarded Rs. 500/— and Rs. of 1,000f— the Code as monthly of Criminal maintenance Procedure. to the respondents under Sectron 125 y the order dated Case No. 26/2008 by the the order sheets of the Family Court wouid Show appear and participate in further proceedings, nt and thereafter he couid not E ion 28.08.2010, 23.09.2010 he was and proceeded filed an application ex—parte. The for applicant setting aside then appeared ex—parte iproceeding. After iiiing of the said application on 23.09.2011, the ‘appiicant did not appear in further proceedings and uitimateiy, the therefore, on - a @ CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 45012011 Family Court received ex—parte evidence on 26.11.2010 and passed the impugned ex—parte order on 21 .02201 1. The order sheets of the Family Court would Show that the apptication of the applicant fer setting aside ex—parte order was not decided by the Family court and further that the applicant did not move any application for setting aside eX—parte proceedings of 26.11.2010 and further for setting aside ex-parte order passed against him. Mr. Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that the applicant wants to file an application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings of 26.11.2010 and also for setting aside ex—parte order passed against him, therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw this criminal revision with liberty to file such an application before the Concerned Court. in view of the fact that the applicant was further proceeded ex- parte on 26.1 1 .2010, on which date the evidence of the respondents were received on record and that the impugned ex—parte order of maintenance has been passed against him, the petition is permitted to be wtthdrawn and the applicant is granted liberty to file a duly constituted application for setting aside ex-parte proceeding/ex—parte order passed against him. Needless to say that if any such application is filed, that shall be decided on its own merits in accordance with law by the concerned Family Court. With the above observation, the criminal revision stands finaily disposed of. i Xe“ \xi‘ ‘ Q Sdl— Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rahui b