1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.244 OF 2008 Mr.Rakeshkumar Maurya .. Applicant Versus Mrs.Suraksha Rakeshkumar Maurya & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Sailesh S. Redekar for the applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhi, A.P.P for the State. Mr.S.C.Thatte for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16th June 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned advocate for the applicant. This revision application is directed against judgment and order dated 07th April 2007 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court by which the applicant has been directed to pay maintenance to the 1st respondent-wife under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The contention of the applicant is that he was not served with the notice of the petition under section 125 of the said Code and therefore the learned Judge of the Family Court could not have proceeded to decide the petition ex-parte. 2 2. A suggestion was given to the parties that if the applicant was willing to pay reasonable amount by way of interim maintenance, the petition under section 125 of the said Code can be remanded to the Family Court for fresh hearing. However, the applicant has offered to pay interim maintenance of only Rs.2,000/- per month which by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be a reasonable amount. 3. There is a remedy available to the applicant of making appropriate application under proviso to sub- section 2 of section 126 of the said Code. Whether the applicant was served with notice or not is a question of fact which can be more conveniently decided by taking recourse to the statutory remedy. 4. In the circumstances, this revision application is not entertained by keeping open the remedy of the applicant of making appropriate application as per proviso to sub-section 2 of section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. All contentions on merits are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)