Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.'), sole applicant - Shobhnath has filed this revision calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 11.04.2007, passed by Family Court, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja in Misc. Case No. 96/06 rejecting his application filed under proviso to Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The core facts required for adjudication of this revision are as under:

1.1 Non-applicant Nos. 1 & 2, being the wife and daughter of applicant-Shobhnath, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, being registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 306/2003, in which the learned Magistrate said to have issued summons to the present applicant for his appearance before that Court, but despite service of summons, he failed to appear before that Court, thus, the trial Magistrate proceeded ex parte and on 27.7.2004, passed an order granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- to each of the non-applicants.

1.2 The present applicant on 9.11.2006 filed an application under proviso to Section 126(2) before the Family Court, Ambikapur, Sarguja along with application for condonation of delay in filing the said application stating inter alia that he was not duly served with the notice of application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he came to know about passing of the impugned order only on 1.10.2006 when the order of maintenance was sought to be executed against him. The said application was opposed by the present non-applicants, by filing reply, stating inter alia that the applicant was duly served with the notice by registered post and he deliberately and willfully avoided appearance before the, court, and as such, the main application under Section 126(2), Cr.P.C. as well as application for condonation of delay in filing the said application deserves to be rejected as no sufficient cause has been shown for delay in filing the application under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the Code.

2. The Family Court, by its impugned order rejected the application filed for setting aside ex parte order of maintenance stating that though the summons of the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was duly not served to the applicant but the applicant has not shown sufficient cause for delay in filing the application u/s. 126(2), Cr.P.C. and thereby rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently the application under proviso to Section 126(2), Cr.P.C. was also rejected. Against this, the instant revision has been filed by the applicant.

3. Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the Family Court has committed legal error in rejecting the application filed under proviso to Section 126(2), Cr.P.C., after having held that summons of the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was not duly served to the applicant. He would further submit that there is uncontroverted evidence available on record to show that he filed application within three months from the date of knowledge of the ex parte order of maintenance and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants would submit that the Family Court is absolutely justified in rejecting the above stated application as the applicant has failed to show sufficient cause for delay in filing the application beyond the statutory period of three months provided in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the Cr.P.C. and, thus, the order impugned deserves to be upheld.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered the rival submissions made therein and perused the records of court below with utmost circu