The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proper service of summon and adherence to procedural laws, ensuring natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.07.2016 passed in Criminal (Maintenance) Case No. 17 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Thoubal, Manipur.

2. The petitioner is the respondent and the first respondent is the first petitioner in Criminal (Maintenance) Case No. 17 of 2015. The second respondent is the son of the first respondent and the petitioner herein.

3. The respondents herein filed Criminal (Maintenance) Case No. 17 of 2015 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the petitioner herein alleging that the first respondent was married to the petitioner in May, 2016 under Manipur Muslim Customs and lived together as husband and wife at the residence of the petitioner at Sora Maning Leikai P.O. & P.S. Kakching, District Thoubal, Manipur till she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home for her parental home at Yairipok Changamdabi P.O. & P.S. Yairipok District Thoubal, Manipur. It is stated that from the wedlock respondent No.2 was born and is staying with the first respondent. It is stated that after the birth of the second respondent, the petitioner took one Marjina from Thoubal Moijing as his second wife and is now living with her. After taking his second wife, the petitioner began to neglect the respondents and started ill-treating them by neglecting to provide food and other necessities. Since the health of the respondents became bad to worse, they were compelled to leave the matrimonial home. It is also stated that the first respondent has no source of income of her own and she has no one to support them.

According to the respondents, the petitioner was working as Jawan in the Indian Army and earning Rs.40,000/- per month besides getting agricultural income of Rs.1,00,000/- from the lands owned by him. Stating so, the respondents have filed Maintenance Case claiming maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the petitioner herein.

4. By the impugned ex parte order, the Family Court directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents as monthly maintenance from the date of application till the second respondent attains majority and thereafter, half the amount till further orders of the Court. The Family Court also directed that arrears if any be paid in instalments, if requested by the petitioner and as agreed by the respondents.

5. Assailing the ex parte order of the Family Court, the petitioner has filed the present revision contending that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the petitioner was never served with summon/notice. It was contended that the Family Court has violated the provisions of Order 5, Rule 17, 19 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the existence of the impugned ex parte order dated 30.07.2016 only on 24.05.2018 when he received summons in Criminal (Execution) Case No.2 of 2018. Thus, it is contended that there is failure of procedural law while passing the impugned ex parte order dated 30.07.2016 and that the impugned ex parte order is not sustainable in the eye of law and prayed for setting aside the same.

6. On the other hand, the respondents filed counter stating that though maintenance order was passed on 30.07.2016 and the execution proceeding for recovery of the maintenance amount started on 22.05.2018, the petitioner has failed to file petition to set aside the ex parte order. It is stated that the petitioner straight away filed the revision petition by passing the Executing Court that too without the explanation of delay in his petition though there is a delay of two years and fifteen days. It is further stated that the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and intended to provide speedy remedy to wife. According to the respondents, the revision petition is devoid of merits and prayed for dismissal of the same.

7. Though the respondents have filed the