D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. :

This revision petition is taken up for disposal, though listed on the application in I.A.2/2012 for early hearing, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent respectively.

2. Revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 27.03.2012 passed in Crl. Misc. No.555/2011 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Bijapur.

3. Under the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Family Court has dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking for setting aside the earlier order passed by the very Court on 03.10.2011 in Crl. Misc. No.196/2011 awarding a maintenance in favour of the respondent to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month on an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

4. The application under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. had been filed on two grounds, mainly, that the revision petitioner has not been served in the proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that the revision petitioner was staying at Bombay, whereas, the notice had been sent to his home address at Kolhapur and had been returned un-served and thereafter, the Court had permitted the claimant the wife to effect service through substituted service. The publication which was effected had been carried in 'SAKAL' news daily having publication at Kolhapur; that the service is a no service in the eye of law, as the provision of Code of Civil Procedure does not enable a person being placed ex parte on such premise; that he had not been served and therefore the order is not tenable.

5. The other ground was that the revision petitioner was out of employment and was not earning any worth while income and therefore unable to pay the maintenance and that it was on the higher side.

6. The learned Judge of the Family Court who examined this matter in some detail, opined that in proceedings for maintenance under the provisions which are provided for under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., when service is permitted through post etc., and in the absence of service of registered acknowledgement, any other mode of service can be adopted and therefore opined that the order sought to be revised did not suffer from any illegality; that in a related proceeding between the parties, the very address, to which notice had been sent by R.P.A.D. had been given and therefore opined that there are no bonafides on the part of the revision petitioner in coming up with an application seeking for modification or setting aside the order only on the ground of non-service etc., Accordingly, dismissed the application filed under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. with cost.

7. It is aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Act.

8. Mr. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband has urged that the learned Judge of the Family Court has committed an illegality in holding that furnishing of address is sufficient service is nature; that the mere fact of sending notice to the address as had been indicated by the revision petitioner is not sufficient to hold that service is effected; that issue of notice to respondent in a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. through registered post acknowledgment due, is also bad in law. The service of notice by way of substituted service as provided for under Order 5, Rule 20(A) of C.P.C. is no service in the eye of law in proceedings under the Cr.P.C. and therefore there was no scope for placing the petitioner exparte in the proceedings, in the absence of the petitioner in the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that the learned Judge of the Family Court had failed to appreciate this legal position and therefore the matter warrants interference.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Prakash Yeli, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has with reference to para Nos. 17 to 20 of the order of the Family Court