Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.

List revised.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State of U.P.

3. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite service of notice sufficiently.

4. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.10.2012 passed by the Special Judge (DAA) Court No.4, Firozabad in Criminal Revision No.116 of 2012 Vinod Kumar v. Smt. Jyoti @ Gudiya and another, whereby the revision preferred by respondent no.2 has been allowed and the judgment and order of the trial court dated 25.05.2012 allowing maintenance for specific period has been set aside.

5. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance which was Numbered as 117 of 2008, Smt. Jyoti @ Gudiya v. Vinod Kumar, wherein proceedings took place ex parte and the application was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 11.02.2009.

6. On perusal of the record, it transpires that ex parte order was later on recalled and the matter was renumbered as Case No.97 of 2010 Smt. Jyoti @ Gudiya v. Vinod Kumar. Thereafter, both the parties put up their respective cases before the trial c