IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1359 of 2007 Md. Istikhar son of Abdul Shade of village Kanwa, P.S. Bela, District- Sitamarhi. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shamshun Khatoon, wife of Md. Istekhar of village- Kanwa, P.S. Bela Distt. Sitamarhi, presently residing at village- Shamshi, P.S. Ramgopalpur, Nepal, Dist. Mahottari, Nepal. … Opp. Parteis. ____ For the petitioner Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State :Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP ----------- 6. 23.11.2011 This application has been preferred against the order dated 11.7.2007 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in Misc. Case No. 15 of 2002 by which the petition under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for recalling the ex parte order has been rejected. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was served upon the petitioner, as such he could not contest the miscellaneous case for maintenance filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by his wife-opposite party no. 2. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no means to pay the amount of maintenance. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on 2 record it appears that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and from their wedlock three children were born. The main contention of the petitioner for recalling the ex parte order is non-service of summon issued upon him. From the impugned order it appears that learned Court has noticed that service of summon on the petitioner has been effected in this case under Section 62 read with Section 64 and 65 Cr.P.c. It has been further found that notice has been served upon the petitioner but he has not chosen to contest the case and therefore the case has to be proceeded ex parte. It further appears from the order dated 5.12.2006 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court in Misc. Case No. 15 of 2002 that after notice has been served and due to non- appearance of the petitioner the case was fixed for ex parte hearing on 13.12.2004 and during ex parte hearing four witnesses have been examined. It has further been found that the petitioner has been neglecting his wife and three children who have no means to support themselves, whereas, the petitioner has sufficient means to support them. Considering 3 the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to his wife and Rs.300/- each to his three children per month for their maintenance. The amount of maintenance is not excessive. The petitioner is not ready to lead conjugal life with opposite party no. 2 and maintain his children. Considering the facts and circumstances, state above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)