JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. By the present revision, the applicant is challenging the judgment and order passed by Principal Judge of Family Court, Amravati, dated 21.02.2015 in Petition No. E-123/2010, by which the learned Judge directed that the applicant shall pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to each of the respondents from the date of the application. 2. The foremost submission of the learned counsel for the applicant Shri Mahesh Rai is that the order impugned is passed behind the back of present applicant. According to him, proper opportunity was not granted to him to defend his case before the Court below and therefore, he prays for remand of the matter in order to provide opportunity to defend the case. 3. Shri K.D. Badode, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted in view of the fact that on 08.08.2013, the present applicant filed an application for restoration of divorce petition before the learned Judge of the Family Court at Nashik, which shows that the applicant was aware that the compromise in between the parties has failed. Therefore, according to him, the present applicant deliberately remained absent from the Court of the learned Judge of the Family Court at Amravati. 4. Admittedly, the proceedings filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Family Court at Amravati under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were decided in absence of the present applicant. 5. From the judgment itself, it is clear that all the efforts were taken by the Court through mediator for reconciliation in between the parties. In fact, the compromise took place in Petition No. A-322/2012 before the Family Court at Nashik. However, according to the respondent/wife, the present applicant failed to adhere with the terms of the said compromise. 6. The order-sheet of Petition No. E-123/2010 in which the impugned order is passed shows that from 22.11.2012 till 27.05.2013, the matter was kept for follow up by the parties. It appears that on 11.07.2013 Pursis Exh. 37 was filed on behalf of the respondent/wife for reopening of the case. It appears from the record that the copy of the said Pursis was not supplied to the present applicant. 7. It appears that on 11.07.2013 Pursis Exh. 37 was filed on behalf of the respondent/wife for reopening of the case. It appears from the record that the copy of the said Pursis was not supplied to the present applicant. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife pointed out that it was within the knowledge of the present applicant that the compromise between the parties had failed, in view of the fact that he himself filed application for restoration of the divorce petition before the Family Court at Nashik. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/wife is having some force. However, at the same time, it is clear that the copy of the Pursis Exh. 37 dated 11.07.2013 filed by the respondent/wife in Petition No. E-123/2010 was not served upon the applicant. Therefore, there was no occasion for the applicant to know that the respondent/wife has reopened the proceedings. 8. In view of that, in my view, if the applicant remained absent before the learned Judge of the Family Court at Amravati, one cannot reach to the conclusion that the present applicant has deliberately done so. 9. Every litigant has right to defend his/her case before the Court of law properly. The litigant should have satisfaction that he has placed all the material before the Court for due consideration from the Court. Normally, the Court should not decide the case behind the back of the litigant without giving the sufficient opportunity to defend his/her case. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Amravati, needs to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back for fresh decision in accordance with law. However, the respondent/wife cannot be in the lurch of the amount of maintenance. 10. The learned counsel for the applicant Shri Mahesh Rai upon instructions from the applicant who is present in the Court makes a statement that the applicant is ready to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the respondents. He submits that the said amount of Rs. 50,000/-shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks. However, period of 8 weeks is too long period, especially when the respondent/wife and the minor son, aged about 6 years, are not having any independent source of income. Hence, the following order. 50,000/- to the respondents. He submits that the said amount of Rs. 50,000/-shall be paid within a period of 8 weeks. However, period of 8 weeks is too long period, especially when the respondent/wife and the minor son, aged about 6 years, are not having any independent source of income. Hence, the following order. "[I] The judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Amravati, dated 21.02.2014 in Petition No. E-123/2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. [II] Petition No. E-123/2010 is restored to the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Amravati, on the condition that the applicant deposits Rs. 50,000/- within a period of 6 weeks from today. The deposit will have to be made before the Family Court at Amravati. Upon such deposit of Rs. 50,000/-, the respondents will be entitled to withdraw the said amount. [III] The deposit of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of 6 weeks shall be the condition precedent for remand of the matter. If the amount so directed is not deposited within a period of 6 weeks from today, then, in that event, the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court at Amravati in Petition No. E-123/2010 shall automatically revive and the respondent/wife shall be entitled to execute the same." Rule is made absolute in these terms.