IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.497 of 2011 PANKAJ KUMAR JHA @ PANKAJ KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR . ----------- 2. 28.04.2011 Although, the application is listed under the heading “for orders on petition” for consideration of the limitation application, this court permitted the petitioner to make submissions on the merit of the application to which learned counsel for the petitioner agreed. Heard both sides. Petitioner is husband. He is raising a grievance with respect to order dated 01.10.2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family court, Madhubani in M.R. No. 48 of 2010. It is submitted that the order has been passed without valid service of notice on the petitioner. Impugned order at para-4 reads as follows:- Notice was issued where upon O.P. did not appear hence, the case proceeded exparte. If the case of the petitioner is that notice was not validly served upon him then the Code of Criminal Procedure itself provides a remedy under Section 126 thereof. Let the petitioner approach the court below by 2 filing appropriate applications within four weeks from today along with a copy of the present order. If any such application is filed within the aforesaid time the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of. Since I have considered the application on merit, the issue of limitation pales into insignificance. Devendra/ ( K.K.Mandal, J.)