IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 119 of 2007 Sanjeev Kumar Tandon .…. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr. ……… Respondents September 27, 2010 Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Gopal Krishan, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision has been preferred against the ex parte judgment and order dated 22.2.2006 passed by the Family Judge, Udham Singh in Misc. Criminal Application No. 138/2004, Smt. Aradhna Tandon v. Sanjeev Kumar Tandon under Section 125 CrPC and order dated dated 1.11.2006 passed by the Family Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Application No. 101/2006 under Section 126(2) CrPC. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC which was partly allowed by the aforesaid ex parte judgment and order dated 22.2.2006 and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 4000/- per month i.e. Rs. 3000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 and Rs. 1000/- per month to his minor son till attaining his majority with effect from the date of making the application i.e. 6.7.2004. Thereafter revisionist preferred an application under Section 126(2) CrPC for quashing the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.2.2006, which was also dismissed vide order dated 1.11.2006. Hence, the present revision has been preferred by the revisionist. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 2 4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist stated that the notice was not served upon the revisionist before passing the ex parte judgment and order dated 22.2.2006. He further prayed that the aforesaid impugned judgment and order may be quashed and the matter be remanded to decide the case afresh and meanwhile during the pendency of the case the revisionist is ready to pay Rs. 2500/- per month to the respondent no. 2. This proposition is acceptable to learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2. 5. Therefore, on the basis of the statement given by learned Counsel for the revisionist and with the consent of Counsel of both the parties, the aforesaid impugned judgment and order 22.2.2006 and the order dated 1.11.2006 passed by the Family Judge, Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to Family Judge, Udham Singh Nagar to decide the case afresh on merit after hearing both the parties. The revisionist is directed to pay Rs. 1500/- per month to the respondent no. 2 and Rs. 1000/- per month to his minor son i.e. total Rs. 2500/- per month by the 10th of each month during the pendency of the case with effect from the date of this order. However, the arrears shall be paid as per the judgment and order dated 22.2.2006 of the Family Judge, Udham Singh Nagar within two months from today. 6. The revision is accordingly disposed of. (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.9.2010 PRABODH