IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 124 of 2011 Sajid S/o Sahid Hasan R/o Village Gram Majra Masjid Wali Gali P.S. Clement Town, District Dehradun …..…Revisionist Versus Smt. Syaida, W/o Sajid D/o Sageer Ahmad R/o Mohalla Paodhoi, Jwalapur Haridwar, District Haridwar ……….Opposite Party Shri K.S. Verma, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Shri Mohd. Safdar, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Parikshit Saini, Advocate, present for the respondent. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 14.02.2011, passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in case no. 23 of 2010, whereby said court has declined to set aside the ex-parte order relating to interim maintenance. 3. Brief facts of the case are that revisionist 2 Sajid got married to respondent Syaida on 11.04.2005. She moved an application under section 125 Cr.P.C., in the year 2010, against the revisionist for maintenance, in which the application was also moved for interim maintenance. It appears that on 24.09.2010, the trial court (Judge, Family Court, Haridwar) passed an ex-parte order directing the revisionist to pay ` 2,000/- per month to his wife (present respondent) during pendency of application under section 125 Cr.P.C.. Impugned order discloses that the recall application was moved by the revisionist before the trial court, but the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.02.2011. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if the revisionist is allowed to contest the application before the trial court provided that he pays the interim maintenance to the respondent. 5. On behalf of the revisionist it is submitted that since the counsel of the revisionist engaged before court below had underwent the surgery as such, the revisionist could not be represented on 24.09.2010. It is pleaded that if the ex-parte order is not set aside, interest of the revisionist would 3 seriously prejudiced. It is further submitted that on behalf of the revisionist that revisionist is a labour. 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, in the above circumstances, this revision is disposed of with the direction that since the revisionist has paid interim maintenance in compliance of this Courts' order dated 08.06.2011, to the respondent (Wife) at the rate of ` 1,000/- per month the impugned order dated 14.02.2011, is hereby set aside. The application 16C moved before the trial court for recall of order dated 24.09.2010, stands allowed. The trial court may proceed further, and decide the application for interim maintenance after giving opportunity of hearing the parties. Meanwhile, the interim maintenance at the rate of ` 1,000/- per month shall continued to be paid by the revisionist (husband) to the respondent till the trial court decides the rate of interim maintenance otherwise, and thereafter, application under section 125 Cr.P.C., after recording evidence of the parties may be disposed of by said court. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 18.08.2011