Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.—How justice sometimes tends to subjugate itself to the procedural law will be demonstrated by the facts of the case which are to follow.

2. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

3. Marriage of the petitioner-husband with respondent No. 2-wife is said to have been solemnized on 24.9.2012 in accordance with Hindu-Sikh rights, rituals and customs. However, it appears that some serious differences between the parties have resulted in institution of various cases by them against each other.

4. The instant petition arises out of an order dated 24.8.2015, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow whereby the application made by the petitioner under Section 126 (2) of Cr.P.C.for setting aside the alleged ex parte interim maintenance order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has been rejected not on the merits of the application but on the ground of maintainability for the reason that this application was not presented by the petitioner himself; rather it was presented by his father in whose favour power of attorney was executed by the p