1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2009 Syed Afzal S/o.Syed Gulab, Age-44 years, Occu-Service, R/o.House No.292, Kabra Nagar, Near Sutgirni, Aurangabad APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Zareenabegum W/o.Syed Afzal, Age-35 years, Occu-Household work, R/o.House No.4-31-1782, Indira Nagar, Garkheda, Aurangabad. 3. Syed Sohel S/o.Syed Afzal, Age-6 years, Minor, Under Guardianship of respondent no.2, R/o. As above. 4. Syeda Mahik Saniya d/o.Syed Afzal, Age-3 years, minor, Under Guardianship of respondent no.2, R/o. As above. RESPONDENTS Mr.S.S.Nirkhee, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.P.P.More, learned APP for State Mr.Y.M.Khan, learned counsel for respondent no.2 to 4. CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 06/07/2010 2 PER COURT : 1. By the present revision application, the applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 24/03/2009 in Petition No.E-40/2008, passed by the Learned Judge of the Family Court, at Aurangabad by which the petition was allowed. The petitioner who was respondent in that petition, was directed to pay monthly maintenance in the sum of Rs.1,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs. 500/- p.m. each to petitioner no.2 and 3 from the date of this petition. The present revision applicant was directed to pay also costs of said petition worth Rs.500/- 2. After this petition was filed in this Court, it appears that interim order was passed on 10/07/2009 on condition that the revision applicant to deposit 50% of the arrears amount on or before 17/07/2009. It appears that as per these directions, in two installments, the amount was deposited, first on 11/09/2009 and then on 08/10/2009. 3. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for State and learned counsel for original complainant. Also perused the impugned judgment passed by the Judge of Family Court. The only ground raised in this revision application is that no opportunity was given to the revision petitioner to put his contentions before the Family Court. According to learned counsel for applicant, as some settlement was arrived outside the Court, hence, the revision applicant did not appear before the Learned Judge of the Family Court. On perusal of 3 the judgment impugned, as well as the grounds raised to admit this revision application, it reveals that there is no participation of the petitioner in the proceeding before the Trial Court, but once the summons is duly served, it is the duty of the parties to the litigation to appear before the Court and to put their defence or whatsoever their stand before the Court. No cogent reason is put forth about the absence of revision applicant before the Trial Court. As inspite of proper and due service on him, he has not participated in the proceeding before the Lower Court, and as no justifiable ground is coming forth to remand the matter for fresh hearing, application sans any merit, as no irregularities are committed to interfere in the impugned judgment. Revision application sans any merit, hence stands dismissed in lemine. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri.rev,158-09