JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged two orders dated 15.7.2008, one order passed on an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent before Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur (for short 'the Family Court' hereinafter) and the other order passed in the proceeding under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would challenge the order Annex.3 dated 15.7.2008 passed on an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by way of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and therefore, do not invite any order on the said order and has confined his arguments only on the order Annex.4 dated 15.7.2008 passed in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's mother was not keeping well and therefore, in order to look after her mother, the petitioner failed to appear before the Family Court on the date fixed by the Family Court and therefore, ex-parte order drawn by the Family Court may be set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the writ petition and contended that there had been a direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition being SBCW No. 6370/2005 between the parties directing the Family Court to dispose of the original petition with utmost expedience and the petitioner for no plausible reason has been avoiding the trial of the case by remaining absent on several occasions and before the Family Court the petitioner failed to place on record any document showing her mother's ailment. 6. From the perusal of the order Annex.4 dated 15.7.2008 it appears that the notices of the proceeding under Section 18 of the Act were served, thereafter the petitioner appeared and engaged counsel, however, after availing several opportunities the petitioner failed to file reply to the application and on 18.4.2007, 7.6.2007 and 16.6.2007 the petitioner remained absent and since on three successive dates the petitioner failed to appear before the Family Court, therefore, the Family Court proceeded ex-parte by order dated 16.6.2007. On an application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 r/w Section 151 C.P.C., the Family Court noticed that the petitioner is a Junior Engineer posted in the area where the proceedings were going on and not only the petitioner even his counsel did not appear on the successive dates and the petitioner has failed to place on record any documents showing the ailment of his mother or any affidavit of the neighbourer where the petitioner and his mother said to have been residing and therefore, in absence of any evidence showing the sufficient cause which prevented the petitioner to appear before the Family Court when the case was called for, the Family Court declined to set aside the ex-parte order. In my view, the petitioner was a party to earlier lis and direction of this Court to dispose of the original petition with utmost expedience came to be passed way back on 6.7.2006 and despite such direction, the petitioner somehow has been avoiding the proceeding and voluntarily remained absent from the Court. In the circumstances, therefore, the Family Court was justified in passing the order impugned. 7. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******