JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.9.2005 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, whereby the learned judge has directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month, from the date of passing of the order, to the respondent wife, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the said order was passed ex parte order. In fact, the notice was never served upon the petitioner. Thus, he had no knowledge that the said order has been passed. It is only when the respondent wife moved a revision petition before this Court, seeking enhancement of the maintenance, that after receiving the notice in that case, he realised that an ex parte order has been passed against him. Immediately he filed an application before the learned Family Court for setting aside the ex parte order. However, vide order dated 25.2.2008, the said application was dismissed. Thus, according to the learned counsel, a grave illegality has been committed against the petitioner as the order has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to him. Secondly, that the respondent wife has not been able to prove the fact that he is earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/by working as a contractor for gardens. Despite this fact still the learned Judge has believed the witnesses produced by the respondent wife, and has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to her. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shrimalee, learned counsel for respondent wife, has contended that throughout the proceedings before the Family Court, the petitioner had been sleeping over his rights. According to the impugned judgment, the notice was duly served upon the petitioner. Yet, he chose not to participate in the judicial proceedings. Therefore, the learned Judge had no option, but to proceed ex parte. Even after filing the application for setting aside the ex parte order, the petitioner appeared before the learned Judge as long as the stay was not granted by this Court. However, when the stay was granted by this Court, vide order dated 20.11.2007, subsequently, the petitioner stopped attending the Family Court. Thus, the Family Court had no option but to dismiss the application in default. Moreover, once the said application has been dismissed, the petitioner has not bothered to challenge the order dated 25.2.2008. Therefore, the said order has achieved finality. Thus, the Family Court had no option but to dismiss the application in default. Moreover, once the said application has been dismissed, the petitioner has not bothered to challenge the order dated 25.2.2008. Therefore, the said order has achieved finality. The petitioner has taken this Court for a ride by concealing the fact from this Court that he had already filed an application for setting aside ex parte judgment. Hence, according to the learned counsel for respondent, petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Secondly, that the learned Judge has noted the fact that Mohd. Ishaq (AW- 3) happens to be a friend of the petitioner, who has clearly stated about the income being earned by the petitioner. Since the petitioner was earning anywhere between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-, the learned judge has granted a maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent wife. The learned counsel has further pleaded that since the respondent wife is aggrieved by the meager amount of maintenance, she has already filed a revision petition for enhancement of the same. Thus, the learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 19.9.2005 as well as the order-sheets produced before this Court with regard to setting aside of the ex parte judgment. To say the least, the conduct of the petitioner is rather curious. On the one hand, he claims that the notice was never served upon him but was served upon another person, whom he claims to be his brother. According to the petitioner, he has no brother named Akram. However, learned Judge has clearly noted in para 4 that the notice in fact was served upon the petitioner and despite service he chose not to appear in the Court. In case, it were true that the notice was served upon a person named Akram, it was expected of the petitioner to have fought tooth and nail for setting aside the ex parte judgment. Yet, till he was not granted stay order by this Court, the petitioner appeared before the learned Judge, Family Court religiously and argued for setting aside the ex parte judgment. Interestingly, the moment the stay was granted by this Court, the petitioner chose not to pursue his remedy before the learned Family Court. Yet, till he was not granted stay order by this Court, the petitioner appeared before the learned Judge, Family Court religiously and argued for setting aside the ex parte judgment. Interestingly, the moment the stay was granted by this Court, the petitioner chose not to pursue his remedy before the learned Family Court. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner had failed to appear before the Family Court ostensibly on the ground that he was not keeping well. But interestingly, no medical certificate was submitted before the Family Court to buttress the plea of being ill. Thus, the plea taken by the petitioner cannot be believed. Furthermore, to aggravate the matter, despite the fact that the application for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed on 25.2.2008, even till today the petitioner has chosen not to challenge the said order. Thus, it cannot be believed that he was aggrieved by the ex parte order. Moreover, the learned Judge has noted in the order that, indeed, the notice was served upon him. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel that he was not given opportunity of hearing and the order impugned was passed ex parte is unacceptable. 5. As far as the income of the petitioner is concerned, according to Mohd. Ishaq (AW-3), who claims to be a friend of the petitioner, the petitioner was having an income between Rs. 10 to 12 thousand per month. Thus, the learned Judge was justified in directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent wife. Hence, the second contention raised by the learned counsel is equally unacceptable. 6. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order; the revision petition being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******