IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4037 of 2011 Ravindra Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. ----------- 3/ 12/10/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP. Petitioner has challenged the final order passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. dated 15.10.2009 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari fixing maintenance amount of Rs. 6000/- per month and its consequential subsequent order dated 30.09.2010 by which the Divisional Manager, Railway, Samastipur has been directed to withhold the salary of the petitioner to such extent that would leave satisfaction of the arrear amount. Simple submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the order impugned, as is evident, is an outcome of a ex-parte proceeding. Just after receiving subsequent notice, he had appeared and filed petition under Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. for recalling an ex-parte order and the matter is still pending at the other hand the order impugned has been passed. Also submitted that he is paying Rs.3000/- per month to his wife as maintenance amount. Further submitted that he is ready to keep his wife and children. In that view of the matter, the order dated 30.09.2010 could not have been passed ceasing the fate of the petitioner directing the Divisional Manager (Railway) to withhold the salary. Learned APP fairly submitted that when the petition under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was there, it should have been decided at an earliest. Learned APP further submitted that only one instalment of 2 Rs.3000/- has been given by the petitioner. If the situation so persists, the petitioner shall continue with payment of Rs.3000/- per month to his wife till order is passed by the learned lower court on a petition under Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. Because of the fact that petitioner by putting his appearance asked for recalling of the ex-parte order passed on 15.10.2009 in accordance with law therefore before directing for withholding of salary vide order dated 30/09/2010 appears to be not justified. Accordingly, the order dated 30.09.2010 is set aside. However, the learned Principal Judge will be at liberty to decide the fate of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. without being influenced by the order impugned. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)