JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehul Surati for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. M.H. Shekhawat for the respondent no.2 and learned APP Mr. K.L. Pandaya for the respondent State. Perused the record. 2. Learned advocate for the applicant-husband has submitted and relied upon communication received from Deputy Manager, Customer Care Centre of General Post office, Ahmedabad that registered letter which is referred in such communication had been returned to the sender on 29.08.2015. He submitted that though notice is not served upon him, the respondent-wife has filed false affidavit before the Trial Court regarding service of notice upon the applicant and therefore, impugned orders need to be quashed and set aside. In addition to such irregularity in form of non service of notice to him and thereby, passing ex-parte order on merits he is assailing impugned order as well as an application for maintenance submitting that since respondent wife is having relationship with one Bholubhai as admitted by her before the learned Trial Court of Biduna, Uttar Pradesh, she is not entitled to get maintenance. However, upon scrutiny of the record, it becomes clear that respondent-wife has already produced on record the status report by the post-office confirming that registered post with acknowledgment due (R.P.A.D.) envelop has been served upon him on 26.08.2015 and therefore, on 17.10.2015 by an application, she has applied to proceed further ex-parte against the applicant. Pursuant to such application at Exh.4, the Trial Court has proceeded further ex-parte against the applicant. Therefore, it is undisputed fact that judgment and order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.175 of 2015 is passed ex-parte against the applicant since he has not appeared in such proceedings. Such fact is categorically disclosed in the impugned judgment. It is evident from the record that when applicant has challenged such order dated 18.11.2015 for maintenance by filing Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2016, even Sessions Court of Ahmedabad has, by its judgment dated 02.02.2017, while remanding the matter before Trial Court imposed certain conditions to the effect that the present applicant being appellant husband shall deposit an amount of arrears of maintenance on or before 31.03.2017 and that if he fails to deposit arrears then order dated 18.11.2015 regarding maintenance by trial shall remain as it is. It is further directed that if applicant deposit such amount then Trial Court shall extend time to defend himself. For the purpose, applicant shall be also directed to remain present before the Trial Court on 15.02.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application No.175 of 2015. 3. It seems that instead of complying with such conditions including condition to appear before the Trial Court on 15.02.2017 as late as on 02.03.2017, the applicant has preferred the present revision application challenging both the orders i.e. order dated 18.11.2015 by the Trial Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.175 of 2015 and order of remanding such matter by judgment and order dated 02.02.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2016. If we consider rival submissions and available records, prima facie, it becomes clear that though husband is challenging service of notice, in fact the learned trial Court has recorded that there is a status report by the Postal department regarding service of R.P.A.D. cover to the applicant and when the certificate on page no.28 relied upon by the husband does not confirm that it is the same envelop, in fact, the applicant should have approached the Trial Court, instead of filing appeal and rushing to this Court under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the Code which provides alternative remedy to challenge ex-parte order before the same Court, where applicant should have certainly proved even by examining the witness from postal department or in comparing number of registration of R.P.A.D. with the certificate by postal authority so as to prove that there is no proper service of notice upon him. Therefore, prima facie, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment dated 02.02.2017 by appellate Court for remanding matter back to the Trial Court and for extending opportunity to the applicant to prove his case. There is no irregularity or illegality in such judgment so far as direction to deposit arrears as per order of the Trial Court is concerned, because by all means, respondent -wife needs amount of maintenance at the earliest and generally all such pleadings and activities by husband is only with a view to delay final decision in such maintenance matter whereby ultimately, they have to pay the amount of maintenance. 4. So far as allegations regarding adultery is concerned, there is no proper proof on record. 4. So far as allegations regarding adultery is concerned, there is no proper proof on record. Moreover, all such allegations cannot be considered either in appeal or revision, without any evidence and only in the form of discloser in pleading at the stage of appeal or revision. Even for such allegations, applicant has to appear before the Trial Court and has to prove it by adducing proper evidence and based upon pleadings only at the appeal or revisional stage, it may not be confirmed that wife is living in adultery and therefore she is not entitled for the maintenance. 5. Since, matter is otherwise ordered to be remanded back to the Trial Court by the appellate Court and since, when I am confirming such order in absence of any irregularity or illegality in both such orders, I do not wish to discuss minute details regarding dispute between the parties so also history of litigations between the parties so as to avoid prejudice to either side before the Trial Court during final decision on merits based upon evidence. 6. So far as direction to deposit an amount of maintenance as per impugned order is concerned, it may be considered that husband is unable to deposit entire amount of arrears at once, ultimately, he may have to go behind the bar but it would not serve the purpose of the wife to get maintenance in time and therefore, applicant is directed to deposit 50% arrears on or before 31.03.2018 before the Trial Court and to wipe out remaining arrears with regular monthly maintenance within a period of six months without fail. 7. It is made clear that if such amount is not deposited, order dated 18.11.2015 shall remain in force without any modification. 8. In view of above facts and circumstances, revision application is partly allowed whereby impugned order dated 02.02.2017 is modified to above extend whereby, though order of remand of Criminal Misc. Application No.175 of 2015 is confirmed, but with modification on condition regarding payment of arrears whereby now since, 31.03.2017 has gone, applicant is directed to deposit 50% arrears on or before 31.03.2018 before the Trial Court and to wipe out remaining arrears with regular monthly maintenance within a period of six months. The Trial Court shall decide the petition within six months after affording reasonable opportunity to both the sides. The Trial Court shall decide the petition within six months after affording reasonable opportunity to both the sides. For the purpose, applicant shall file his appearance in Criminal Misc. Application No.175 of 2015 before the Trial Court on or before 15.02.2018.