JUDGMENT : 1. In this petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur, being patently illegal and in violation of the law governing the subject. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner married with respondent No.1 on 12.12.2015 under Hindu rites and rituals. The relationship of the respondent No.1 with petitioner remained cordial for sometime after the marriage and only within thereafter her attitude and behaviour of the respondent No.1 changed drastically and started maltreating the petitioner and his family members for no rhyme or reason and refused to change her behavior and kept forcing the petitioner to live separately from his family. After 15 days of marriage the respondent left the matrimonial home without any reason or rhyme. Instead of coming back, she filed a petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. on 16.09.2016. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner for filing objections to the petition filed by the respondents and petitioner appeared before the Court and due to the fact that petitioner is an employee of J&K High Court at Jammu could not appear in the Court at Udhampur and therefore, engaged a lawyer, who after filing the Vakalatnama, did not file the objections, neither appeared before the Court and the Court initiated ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner. The Court after appreciating the evidence brought by the respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance amount to the respondents. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved of the impugned ex-parte order has challenged the same in the instant petition on the following grounds : (i) That the judgment impugned is bad in law as well as on facts and hence deserves dismissal out rightly. (ii) That the petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. is accompanied with an application for interim relief and after preliminary statements and evidence the order of interim maintenance is passed. In the instant case there is no such application accompanied with the petition and the same has been decided ex-parte. (iii) That the petitioner is suffering ex-parte judgment due to the conduct of the counsel engaged by him who absented himself and did not inform the petitioner about its proceedings in time. Hence, the petitioner has been prejudiced. In the instant case there is no such application accompanied with the petition and the same has been decided ex-parte. (iii) That the petitioner is suffering ex-parte judgment due to the conduct of the counsel engaged by him who absented himself and did not inform the petitioner about its proceedings in time. Hence, the petitioner has been prejudiced. (iv) That the court below has relied on the evidence led by the respondent which has not been proved as the respondent is not entitled to maintenance solely on the ground that she has deserted the petitioner and had no sufficient reason to refuse to live with the petitioner and discharge her matrimonial duties in order to deserve maintenance. The court below has ignored this aspect of the matter and has passed the order impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated all the grounds taken in the memo of this petition, whereas learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the present petition is not maintainable because, there are express provisions of law for re-dressal of grievance of petitioner. 5. I have considered rival contentions. 6. From perusal of the file and the annexures attached thereto, it is evident that the respondent No.1 had filed the petition for grant of maintenance under Section 488 Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur, on 16.09.2016 wherein petitioner No.1/respondent No.1 herein had stated that her marriage was solemnized on 12.12.2015 under Hindu Rites and Rituals at Radha Krishan Mandir, Kathua. Before this marriage, the respondent/petitioner herein was a divorcee and she was also a widow and out of the first marriage of the petitioner No.1, a male issue namely Anish Sharma was also born and the child was adopted by the petitioner herein. A marriage agreement was executed between them on 12.12.2015 in this regard. The relationship with her husband remained cordial for fifteen days after the performance of their marriage and thereafter the attitude and behaviour of the husband changed and started maltreating, torturing and humiliating her. The family members of her husband including mother and sister also used to harass and humiliate her and used derogatory language against her. Her mother in law did not allow her to go along with her husband/respondent who usually resided at his official quarter situated at Janipur Housing Colony, Jammu being an employee of the High Court. The family members of her husband including mother and sister also used to harass and humiliate her and used derogatory language against her. Her mother in law did not allow her to go along with her husband/respondent who usually resided at his official quarter situated at Janipur Housing Colony, Jammu being an employee of the High Court. All these atrocities were tolerated by her with this hope that things would change, but unfortunately the attitude and behavior of her husband and his family members did not mend. The family members of her husband hatched a conspiracy to oust her from her matrimonial home. In the month of March, 2016, the sister in law of the petitioner No.1, namely, Sneha asked her to spend some days at her parental home at Udhampur along with her son and also accompanied her to Udhampur. Thereafter, her husband and his family members have never ever made any effort to meet or to make any contact with her and they used to avoid the phone calls as well. This process continued for two months and after that the brother of the petitioner No.1 alongwith her visited her matrimonial home to sort out the differences but the mother of the respondent turned them out and did not pay any heed to the words of the petitioner No.1 and her brother. On this petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C., summon was issued to the respondent to appear before the Court on 30.09.2016 but he did not appear and thereafter several opportunities were provided to the respondent to appear before the Court and lastly on 23.01.2017 the counsel for the respondent therein filed Vakalatnama but thereafter neither the respondent nor his counsel appeared before the Court. Vide order dated 24.05.2017 Court below initiated ex-parte proceedings against the respondent and the petitioner No.1 was directed to produce her witnesses. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 16.10.2017 the Court below has granted maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month in favour of respondents/petitioners therein. The concluding para of the order impugned is as under : “Taking into consideration, the oral evidence and case law referred herein above, there is ground to allow the petition in exparte. The petitioner are allowed the maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month viz Rs.,5000/- per month to the petitioner no.1 and Rs.2000/- per month to the petitioner No.2. The petitioners are entitled to the maintenance from the date of petition. The petitioner are allowed the maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month viz Rs.,5000/- per month to the petitioner no.1 and Rs.2000/- per month to the petitioner No.2. The petitioners are entitled to the maintenance from the date of petition. A copy of this order be furnished to the petitioner free of costs and file after due compilation be consigned to records.” 7. Court below has appreciated the evidence produced by respondents in right perspective, while granting the maintenance. Petitioner has two efficacious remedies available for challenging the order impugned. One is to file an application for setting aside ex-parte order of maintenance before same Court, and secondly to file revision before Sessions Court against the order of maintenance. When there are express provisions of law under Criminal Procedure Code, available to petitioner, the petition under section 561-A Cr.P.C would not be maintainable. Because, it is not the case of petitioner that, there was some legal bar engrafted in law for filing the petition before Court below or Court below was not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. The disputed questions of defense cannot be considered in this petition. 8. Hence this petition is not maintainable, it is dismissed accordingly; petitioner may avail appropriate remedy under law.