SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pooja Saxena, opposite party no.2 who has appeared in person, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been filed against the order dated 04.02.2017 passed by the Judge, Family Court/FTC-I, Agra in Misc. Case No. 73 of 2016 (Vivek Mathur Vs. Pooja Saxena). By that order the learned court below has rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. The aforesaid application had been filed with reference to the ex parte order dated 16.05.2016 passed in Case No. 598 of 2015. By that order maintenance allowance had been awarded @ Rs. 20,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and @ Rs. 15,000/- per month to her son, from date of their application being 24.07.2015.

3. Earlier, by the order dated 16.02.2017, passed in the present proceedings, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, subject to payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the opposite party no.2. Over and above that amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- had been paid by the applicant towards mediation.

4. Admittedly, the mediation has failed and the matter has thus been listed before this Court for hearing.

5. Only submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant had no knowledge of the ex parte order dated 16.05.2016 passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. No sooner did he gain knowledge of the same, through a common acquaintance of the parties, he filed the application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. on 24.05.2016.

6. In this regard, it is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 did not file any objection or reply to the aforesaid application filed under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C.

7. Then it has been submitted that the applicant had no knowledge of the proceeding inasmuch as the text message allegedly sent to him through SMS, on his cellular phone, by the police officer at Bengaluru, was never received by him and also it is submitted that such notice was never affixed at his residence. Since he had no knowledge of the proceedings under section 125, it is submitted that the learned court below has erred in rejecting the application filed Under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C.

8. Opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, the opposite party no.2, submits that though she may not have filed a formal objection to the application under section 126 (2) Cr.P.C., however, she had brought all the relevant facts on record denying the assertion made in the application filed under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C.

9. Such denial is stated to be contained in her affidavit in support of her application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. That application had been filed with reference to the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. In her affidavit filed along with her application filed under section 340 Cr.P.C., the opposite party no.2 had annexed documents that were numbered and described/identified as paper no. 5B (affidavit) and documents 5B/4 to 5B/14.

10. On the strength of her application filed under section 340 Cr.P.C., it has been submitted that the earlier notices dispatched to the applicant by speed post mode had been served on the applicant but that he failed to respond to the same. Thus earlier notice (in the same proceedings), had been dispatched to the applicant on 28.07.2015, by the learned court below, by speed post bearing RU 140470019IN. It was delivered to the applicant at Bengaluru, at his residence on 10.08.2015. Then, another notice was dispatched to the applicant on 14.10.2015, by the learned court below, again through speed post mode bearing EU 424253402IN. It was delivered to the applicant on 23.10.2015.

11. It has then been submitted that in addition to the above, notice of the proceedings was further effected on the applicant through the agency of the local police at Bengaluru. Thus the applicant had full knowledge