Judgment : The criminal revisional application being C.R.R.307 of 2010 is taken up for hearing. The challenge in this revisional application is to the order dated 11.1.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Paraganas in Misc. Case No.450 of 2004 under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance of the opposite parties No.2 and 3, the parents. The order was passed ex-parte. This Court while passing an order of interim stay dated 5.2.2010 directed the petitioner Jhantu Mondal to go on paying a sum of Rs.2,000/- each per month to the opposite parties No.2 and 3 as their monthly Maintenance till the revisional application is disposed of. It is submitted by Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Bapuli, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 that Jhantu Mondal, the petitioner has not paid maintenance for the last 6 months at the rate of Rs.2,000/- each per month. The opposite parties No.2 and 3 initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. against their son Jhantu Mondal, the petitioner praying for monthly maintenance as they have no means to maintain themselves while the petitioner, Jhantu Mondal being one of their sons having sufficient means to maintain them, failed and neglected to maintain them. The learned Magistrate passed an order of interim maintenance initially and thereafter passed the order impugned ex-parte directing the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance of the opposite parties No.2 and 3. The petitioner has come up with this revisional application challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the same mainly on the ground that he was not given any opportunity to be heard before the ex-parte order of maintenance was passed. It appears from the record that somehow the petitioner herein could not avail the opportunity provided to him by the learned Trial Court and failed to adduce evidence on his behalf. There cannot be any hesitation to hold that each and every case is to be heard on merit and parties to the case should be given equal opportunity to be heard. There cannot be any hesitation to hold that each and every case is to be heard on merit and parties to the case should be given equal opportunity to be heard. Therefore, I think that it is innocuous and justified prayer on behalf of the petitioner to get an opportunity to be heard by the learned Trial Court before the matter is finally disposed of. On that count, I allow the prayer, however, subject to the payment of arrear maintenance of Rs.4,000/- X 6 months= Rs.24,000/-as a condition precedent. Upon payment of such amount of arrear maintenance, the learned Court should fix a date for hearing of the case and give both the parties to an opportunity to adduce evidence on their part. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court should dispose of the matter on merit. The petitioner is directed to pay the amount of arrear maintenance as directed above within a period of one month from this date to the opposite parties No.2 and 3 and file proper receipt before the learned Trial Court who, after receiving such information in writing, shall fix a date as early as possible to record evidence of the parties. With the aforesaid direction, this revisional application is, thus, disposed of. Let a Xerox plain copy of this order be given to the parties so that it can be placed before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court is directed to act on the same in order to avoid any further delay.