JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on IA no. 572, dated 30.6.2011 seeking condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the revision petition. 2. Heard on application. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. 4. Heard the criminal revision petition on merits also. 5. Petitioner's grievance is that in application filed by his wife (non-petitioner) before Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, in the notices issued against him, his parentage was not correct and the court passed ex-parte order. 6. I have looked into the copy of the notice filed, it shows that the parentage of the petitioner has been shown as Mukandaram S/o Shri Hukma Ram whereas as per record his father's name is Peetha Ram. Hence service cannot be said to be proper. 7. I am convinced with the arguments. Since the service against him, was not effected on proper person, hence the same cannot be said to be service in the eye of law. 8. This criminal revision petition deserves to be allowed and the order of the revisional court as also the trial court being order dated 28.2.2011 and 30.11.2010 deserve to be set aside. 9. The matter is remanded back to the court of Judicial Magistrate Laxmangarh, District Sikar to hear both the parties and decide the petitioner's application u/S. 125 Cr.PC. in accordance with law. 10. The criminal revision petition stands allowed. 11. Stay application also stands disposed. 12. Copy of the order be also sent to the revislonal court.Revision Allowed. *******