THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.R.C.No. 252 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 23.11.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.1459 of 2010 in M.C.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram wherein the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte order dated 17.07.2010, was dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. The petitioner is the husband of the second respondent and the father of respondents 3 and 4. Respondents 2 to 4 filed M.C.No.4 of 2009 against the petitioner seeking maintenance. By order dated 17.07.2010, the trial Court allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1000/- per month each to the two children. According to the petitioner, he was not served with the notice in M.C.No.4 of 2009. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 would contend that the petitioner refused to receive the notice and therefore, he was set ex parte. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1459 of 2010 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 17.07.2010. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner herein refused to receive the notice as seen from the endorsement of the postal authorities on the returned notice and therefore, there are no valid grounds for setting aside the ex parte order. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to have the maintenance case disposed of on merits. While ordering notice before admission, this Court on 07.02.2011 granted interim stay subject to the condition that the petitioner herein deposits entire arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month and continue to deposit the said amount at the same rate on or before 10th of every succeeding month. It is stated that the interim order is being complied with regularly. In the circumstances, it is considered that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to have the maintenance case disposed of on merits. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall, however, continue to pay Rs.2,500/- per month on or before 10th of every succeeding month to respondents 2 to 4 by way of maintenance pending disposal of the main M.C. Learned Magistrate shall dispose of the Maintenance Case at an early date on its own merits and in accordance with law without in any way being influenced by the interim order passed by this Court on 07.02.2011 which is now being made absolute. The criminal revision case is disposed of. G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J Dt. 08.07.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.R.C.No. 252 of 2011 Dt. 08.07.2011