JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar, J. - Dhruv Kumar has filed this Criminal revision under Sections 397/401 (1), Cr. P.C. for setting aside the judgment and order of the VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Hardoi dated March 19, 1982, allowing the application of the opposite party Smt. Ranjana Devi for maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate before whom the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. commenced, has dismissed the application for maintenance under his order dated July 13, 1981. Thus the learned Additional Sessions Judge has reversed the judgment and order of the Magistrate. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the revisionist has come up in this revision. 2. Learned counsel of both sides have been heard and the materials brought on the records have been carefully perused. 3. The only point pressed from the side of the revisionist in this revision petition is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed error as well as illegality in presuming/holding that the service of summons/ notice purported to have been issued by the office of the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the opposite party revisionist by registered post for tire hearing of 8-3-1982 in the revision petition filed before the Additional Sessions Judge was sufficient. After filing of the revision petition the Additional Sessions Judge passed order for issue of summons/notice to the revisionist, who was opposite party. The order sheet dated January 29, 1982 shows that the notice summons were not received back. The order for issue of fresh notice/summon to the revisionist was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for 23-2-1982. On that day, it was found that the notice/summons were not issued to the revisionist, because the steps were not taken. On that date, order was further passed for issue of the notice to the revisionist fixing 8-3-1982 for hearing of the case on 8-3-1982 it was found and noted in the order sheet that the registered letter had, not been received back implying that it was issued. On the same date it was further ordered that search be made in the connection. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the next date of hearing i.e. 17-3-1982 proceeded with the matter ex-parte in absence of the revisionist. On the same date it was further ordered that search be made in the connection. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the next date of hearing i.e. 17-3-1982 proceeded with the matter ex-parte in absence of the revisionist. In his impugned judgment he has mentioned that the registered letter was sent to the revisionist on 24-2-1982 fixing 8-3-1982 for hearing and it had not been received back till the date of the judgment i.e. 19-3-1982, so it was deemed that the service had been effected on the revisionist. 4. In fact, with the help of the learned counsel of both sides, I have gone through the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge and failed to get any satisfactory proof of issue of notice/summons to the opposite party revisionist for 8-3-1982 or for any subsequent date through registered post. After all, had the process been issued in that way the postal receipt must have been placed on the record. Even the learned counsel for the opposite party has admitted, that he could not find any such receipt on the record of the case. The Additional Sessions Judge does not seem to have made a proper scrutiny of the record to satisfy himself whether the process was at all issued by registered post for the date of 8-3-1982. It seems that process was not issued to the revisionist for date of 8-3-1982 for his appearance in the revision petition on that date of hearing or thereafter. It is believable that he was not at all informed of the revision and consequently absented on the date of the hearing of the revision petition. 5. Even if it is assumed as was some-how believed by the Additional Sessions Judge that the notice/summons were issued to the revisionist by registered post, it is clear that the said mode of the service was not prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Obviously, the notice/summons, which were to be served for the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. the procedure prescribed for issue of summon notice in a criminal case is to be followed. Section 62 of the Code provides that the summons are to be served by the police officers or through officers of the court. 6. Obviously, the notice/summons, which were to be served for the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. the procedure prescribed for issue of summon notice in a criminal case is to be followed. Section 62 of the Code provides that the summons are to be served by the police officers or through officers of the court. The learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the service of the summon should be affected through the agency of the police, but this has not been done in the instant case. 7. Further the aspect of the service of the notice/summons in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. by registered post was duly considered in the case Maqsood Ahmad v. Mst. Arifa Khatoon and another, 1981 Luck LJ 237, by a single Judge of this Court, who relied on other rulings. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the service of notice or summons by registered post in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. was not warranted and cannot be regarded as correct or a legal course. I find no reason to differ with the considered opinion of the learned Judge. 8. It is therefore, held that this revision petition has force, inasmuch as the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed error and illegality. Therefore, the revision petition deserves to be allowed and opportunity should be given to the revisionist to appear and contest before the learned Sessions Judge. 9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated March 19, 1982 is set aside and the case is remanded for hearing. Let the record be sent to the Court of Sessions Judge, Hardoi, for hearing of the revision petition of Smt. Ranjana Devi for this purpose the parties are directed to appear before the Court of Sessions Judge, Hardoi on 14-10-1986. It is old case and should be expedited. No further notice be issued to the parties. Learned Sessions Judge is free to transfer the revision petition to any other competent Court.