JUDGMENT R Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioner in the present Criminal Revision Case is the husband of the 1st respondent. The petitioner and the 1st respondent have two children. 2. Due to marital disputes there was a separation between the husband and wife, resulting in the wife looking after the second daughter and the husband looking after the first daughter. 3. The 1st respondent-wife herein had filed M.C.No.19 of 2017 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- for herself and Rs.10,000/- for the second daughter, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent in the present case. 4. After receiving notice, the petitioner herein had filed counter affidavit raising various defences and making various allegations against the 1st respondent herein. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate was pleased to allow the maintenance case by way of an ex parte order on account of the fact that the petitioner had not prosecuted his case by appearing before the Court and adducing necessary evidence. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate allowing the petitioner in toto, the petitioner has now approached this court by way of the present criminal revision case. 6. Sri Venkatram Reddy Mantur learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, due to certain illness, was unable to adduce evidence before the learned Magistrate and orders were passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to present his case before the learned Magistrate. 7. Sri Bhargav Akula, learned counsel for the respondents has taken the preliminary objection that this case is not maintainable. He submits that Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. permits the petitioner to file an application for adducing evidence by showing cause as to why the petitioner was not available to adduce evidence earlier. 8. In view of the rival submissions made by both sides and keeping in view the fact that the order under revision was passed on 29.03.2019 and the petitioner had approached this Court on 18.06.2019 which is within three months period stipulated under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C., it would be appropriate to dispose of this criminal revision case. 9. 8. In view of the rival submissions made by both sides and keeping in view the fact that the order under revision was passed on 29.03.2019 and the petitioner had approached this Court on 18.06.2019 which is within three months period stipulated under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C., it would be appropriate to dispose of this criminal revision case. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali, under the provisions of Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., which shall be considered by the learned Magistrate without taking into account the period between 18.06.2019 to the date on which the certified copy of this order is obtained. It is made clear that this exclusion will be available provided the petitioner makes an application for certified copy of this order within one week from today. Upon an application being made by the petitioner under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate shall consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 10. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.