Revisional Court will not interfere with findings of fact regarding service of notice absent manifest perversity.

A Family Court in Saharanpur, U.P., had previously directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 5,000 per month as maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act during divorce proceedings, which concluded in a decree of divorce on 12.10.2018.

Parallelly, respondent no. 2 filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Haridwar. On 07.07.2017, the Haridwar court passed an ex-parte order directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 5,000 per month for the maintenance of the minor daughter (respondent no. 3).

The revisionist filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. to recall this ex-parte order, claiming he was never served notice and that respondent no. 2 was gainfully employed.

The Family Court, Haridwar, dismissed this recall application on 15.12.2018, leading to the current revision.

1. Whether the impugned order dismissing the application for recall of the ex-parte maintenance order suffered from illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

2. Whether the existence of a prior maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act rendered the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. unsustainable or resulted in an impermissible duplication of liability.

Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which define the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that it cannot be used for re-appreciation of evidence but only to correct manifest illegality or jurisdictional errors.

Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C., which allows for the setting aside of an ex-parte order upon showing "sufficient cause" for non-appearance.

The distinction between maintenance pendente lite under personal law (Hindu Marriage Act) and statutory maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., noting the former’s temporary nature.

The Court observed that the Family Court, Haridwar, had recorded a specific finding of fact that the revisionist was afforded sufficient opportunity and that the claim of non-service was an afterthought.

Under revisional jurisdiction, the High Court declined to re-evaluate this factual finding as no evidence of perversity was presented.

Regarding the "duplication" of maintenance, the Court reasoned that the Saharanpur order was merely maintenance pendente lite which naturally terminated upon the final decree of divorce on 12.10.2018.

The Section 125 Cr.P.C. order stood as an independent and valid obligation for the support of the minor child.

The criminal revision was dismissed, and the order of the Family Court, Haridwar, was affirmed.