Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Heard on admission.

2. The petitioners herein filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance before the Jurisdictional Family Court on 27-10-2014. That case was fixed before the Family Court on, 22-1-2015 for recording evidence of petitioners herein, but on that day, the petitioners could not appear before the Family Court and the Family Court dismissed the application for want of prosecution.

3. Petitioners herein have directly rushed to this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stating inter alia that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of petitioners before the Family Court on the date, of hearing.

4. On being asked, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that application for restoration is not maintainable before the Family Court as proviso to Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. is applicable where the non-applicant in the said case proceeded ex-parte and ex-parte order of maintenance is passed, but proviso to Section 126(2) does not contemplate a situation where maintenance application itself has been dismissed for want of prosecution, and therefore, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. be entertained a