IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.622 of 2011 Sunil Kumar Singh son of Sri Siya Ram Singh, R/o Qtr. no. 2091 Sector 4/E, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, Jharkhand, presently residing at CISF unit, Nalco, Daman Jodi, P.S.Daman Jodi, Dist- Koraput (Orrisa). ---Petitioner. Vrs. 1. The State of Bihar 2. Rani Kumari @ Ruli Singh daughter of Sri Narendra Singh R/o Garhawa Katauna, P.S. Malaipur ( Barhat) Dist. Jamui at presently residing at Qrt. no. 334/B Railway colony, Jhajha, Dist. Jamui ---Opp.Parties. ----------- 02 23.05.2011 The present matter has been listed under the heading for orders „On Petition‟ for consideration of limitation petition (I.A. No. 1264 of 2011) This Court permitted the petitioner to make submissions on merit of the case. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is husband. He is aggrieved by order dated 25.08.2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamui in case no. 22(M) of 2010 whereby, on a consideration of the materials on record, he has been directed to make payment of maintenance favouring his wife/opposite party no.2 in the sum of Rs. 8000/- (Eight thousand) per month w.e.f. the date of filing of the said application. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order was passed without serving notice on him. Impugned order records as under:- “The O.P. Sunil Kumar Singh did not appear to contest this petition in spite of service of notice and as such the proceeding of this case was fixed for Ex- parte hearing against him.” 2 If the case of the petitioner is that notice was not validly served on him then Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short „the Code‟) itself provides a remedy in terms of Section 126 of the Code. Let petitioner approach the Court below and file an application for setting aside the order in terms of the provision of the Code within a period of 05 weeks from today. If any such application is filed within the aforesaid time along with a copy of the present order, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Court below in accordance with law. For 05 weeks from today, operation of notice dated 11.04.2011 as contained in Annexure-9, shall remain stayed. Petitioner shall be at liberty to seek interim relief thereafter from the Court below itself. Since I have considered the case on merit, the issue of limitation pales into insignificance. Application stands disposed of. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)