HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 99 of 2004 Hari Om Bishnoi S/o Kanta Prasad, R/o vill & Post Rajpura Kesria, P.S. Dilari, Distt. Moradabad. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1. Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, 2. Smt. Bimla Bishnoi W/o Hari Om Bishnoi, D/o Baid Prakash R/o Daira Sakhwa Devpura, Teh. Haridwar, Distt. Haridwar. ------- Respondents None is present for the revisionist, Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Adv. for the State. Dated: July 17, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 15.04.2004 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Misc. Case no. 16/2004 by which the application of the revisionist-husband moved u/s 126 (2) Cr.P.C. was rejected. 2. List is revised, but none has responded for the revisionist. Head Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. no.2 and Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. 3. From perusal of the record it reveals that the revisionist moved petition u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court on 20.01.2004 with the prayer to set-aside the ex-parte order dated 27.06.2003 passed against him in the maintenance case no. 14/2000 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Smt. Vimla vs. Hari Om by which the revisionist was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Alongwith his petition, the revisionist moved application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, with the prayer to condone the delay in filing the petition u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. Earlier in the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. the case was proceeded ex-parte against the revisionist on 26.06.2003 and on 2 27.06.2003 the case was decided ex-parte against the revisionist with the direction to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance. Thereafter, the petition u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. was moved on 20.01.2004 alongwith delay condonation application with the explanation that he had not received any summon in regard to the proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C., therefore he could not attend before the Court. After he came to know through his elder brother, he moved the application for setting-aside the order of ex-parte dated 27.06.2003 to provide him opportunity of hearing. The wife-respondent no.2 filed her written objection with the averments that the revisionist has flouted the orders of the Trial Court. The revisionist did not intend to pay the sum awarded to her as interim maintenance. In a Misc. case no. 91/2003 a recovery warrant was issued for the recovery of Rs. 44,000/- but in avoidance of payment of interim maintenance, this baseless petition has been filed. No reasoning has been assigned for condoning the delay in filing the petition. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the Court below rejected the application u/s 5 of Limitation Act as also the petition of the revisionist moved u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. vide his impugned order dated 15.04.2004. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the revisionist has come up in the instant revision. 4. The impugned order has been assailed inter-alia on the ground that the amount of maintenance is excessive in comparison to the income of the revisionist; that the respondent-wife is self dependent as she is working in a P.C.O. at Haridwar and getting salary. But from perusal of the impugned judgment and order it has came out that after the interim maintenance was awarded to the tune of Rs. 400/- per month, the revisionist continuously moved applications before the Trial Court seeking adjournment. The revisionist did not turn up before the Court, therefore the Court below proceeded ex-parte hearing against the revisionist-husband on 26.06.2003 and ultimately on 27.06.2003 the ex-parte judgment was passed directing the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 3 1,000/- per month to the respondent no.2-wife as maintenance. The court below came to the conclusion that by the ex-parte judgment amount of maintenance was already fixed, against which the revisionist preferred revision before the Sessions Court and he obtained opportunity of hearing on merits also, thereby he was fully acquainted with the proceedings. The plea taken by the revisionist that he came to know about the ex-parte order through his elder brother, was also found baseless. In these circumstances the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the revisionist filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and the petition u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Trial Court is correct and justified which does not warrant any interference at this stage. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Sri Lok Pal Singh has contended that the revisionist has not challenged the order passed by the Trial Court in disposal of the application filed u/s 5 Limitation Act and merely the order passed in disposal of petition u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. is under challenge. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 find ample force. The revisionist would have challenge first the order passed in disposing of the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and then he would have challenge the order passed in disposal of petition filed u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. 6. Otherwise also on a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 15.04.2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.07.2008 NCM: