CRLR No. 104 of 2010 With CRMA No. 521 of 2010 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J Shri Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Heard. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.04.2010, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in case no. 308 of 2006, whereby said court has directed the revisionist to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month, to his wife. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is a labour, and he was unable to pay even interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month to his wife, as such the amount of Rs. 2,500/- directed to be paid by the revisionist is excessive. A perusal of the impugned order shows that said order is an ex-parte order. The revisionist could have got the order set aside by moving an application under proviso to sub-section (2) of section 126 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the impugned order, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage in the revisional jurisdiction, as the revisionist could have moved an application for setting aside the ex- parte order passed by the trial court. Therefore the revision is dismissed summarily, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, with the observation that the revisionist is at liberty to move an application under proviso to sub-section (2) of section 126 of Cr.P.C. (P.C.P., J) PV 08.06.2010