An ex parte maintenance order should first be challenged through the setting-aside remedy under Section 126(2) CrPC.

The Family Court, Kotdwar, allowed the respondent-wife’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist-husband to pay maintenance of ₹15,000 per month.

The order was passed ex parte.

The revisionist argued that service obligations in the Border Security Force prevented him from effectively appearing and presenting evidence about his income, expenses, and liabilities; he sought to have the order set aside and the matter remanded.

The respondent opposed the revision, relying on the remedy under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside an ex parte maintenance order.

Whether the revisionist should first pursue the statutory remedy under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. before challenging the ex parte maintenance order by criminal revision.

Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. provides a person against whom an ex parte maintenance order has been made a remedy to apply to the court that passed it to set the order aside, on showing sufficient cause for non-appearance and subject to the conditions prescribed by the court.

The respondent also referred to the provision’s time limit and to an Allahabad High Court decision, arguing that the statutory remedy should be pursued before filing a revision; the Uttarakhand High Court did not separately analyse or adopt that precedent.

The Court noted that the impugned maintenance order was ex parte and that Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. furnished a specific remedy before the court that made the order.

It therefore considered that the revisionist should first seek relief through that procedure.

The Court did not assess the merits of the revisionist’s explanations for non-appearance or the respondent’s allegations concerning the marriage and conduct of the parties.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.