PARDEEP Vs. RITU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband (Pardeep) has filed this appeal against the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the District Judge (Family Court), Hisar on an application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the said order, the Family Court has awarded Rs. 1,100 per month as maintenance to the Respondent wife.

(2.) In this case, there is a delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. In the application (Crl. Misc. No. 11801 of 2010) for condonation of delay, on 5.3.2010 notice of motion was issued by this Court. As per office report, notice upon the Respondent has been duly served. However, no one is present on behalf of the Respondent wife.

(3.) Today, Counsel for the appellant, while referring to the decision dated 10.3.2010 passed by this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 270-DB of 2010, submitted that this appeal may be treated as a revision as in that decision it was held that against an order passed in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a remedy of revision is available under Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as the said section confers power on this Court on its own motion or otherwise to call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situated within its jurisdiction passed an order tinder Chapter 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the purpose of satisfying itself to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order.