IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.124 of 2009 Kishore Sah, son of late Saryug Sah, resident of village- Parokiya, P.S.-Sonbarsha, District- Saharsa. Versus 1. Radha Devi, wife of Kishore Sah and D/O of Sri Sah, resident of village-Manuari, P.S.-Sonbarsha, District- Saharsa. 2. Raj Kumar Sah. 3. Arun Sah. 4. Parvati Kumari (All minor sons (2 & 3) and daughter (4) of Kishore Sah, represented through their natural guardian Radha Devi (mother) residents of village-Manuari, P.S.-Sonbarsha, District- Saharsa) ----------- 5. 30.08.2011 The husband-petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 2.07.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa in Misc. Case No.52/06 by which he has been directed to pay total sum of Rs.1100/-per month for maintenance of his wife and three children. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Even after service of notice, the opposite parties have not appeared. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed ex- parte without giving any notice of the proceeding to the petitioner. He has also filed a petition dated 27.09.2008 for recall of ex-parte order, but it has been rejected by order 2 dated 19.12.2008. The petitioner has filed an information report as to whether the petitioner has appointed any Advocate in the proceeding in Misc. Case No.52/06 or not. A report dated 9.08.2008 has been given by the court concerned that no Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the opposite party, who is at present petitioner in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he has no notice about the case, he could not appear in the case and could not place his case in that proceeding and as such, the ex-parte order dated 2.07.2008 should be set aside. He has further submitted that the petitioner is ready to file a petition under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order within three weeks. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the learned court has mentioned the order dated 19.12.2008 that notices have properly been issued against the opposite party/husband. Since 22.06.2007, the opposite party/ husband of Misc. Case No.52/06 has been represented by the lawyer and the court on 3.12.2007 ordered to proceed ex-parte hearing. Hence the petitioner/husband cannot agitate that the proceeding has been concluded without his 3 knowledge, whereas on the other hand, the petitioner has filed a copy of the application for information vide Annexure-2. It further appears that no Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in the aforesaid Misc. Case No.52/06, but some one was making Pairvi without filing any Vakalatnama executed by the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 2.07.2008 is set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner will go on paying the amount of the maintenance granted vide the impugned order dated 2.07.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge during the pendency of the petition to be filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks. In case the petitioner does not file any petition under Section 126 Cr.P.C./ does not pay Rs.1100/-per month to his wife for maintenance of herself and her children, the impugned order will revive and the law will take its own course. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)