JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir-Champa, in Case No. 82/2015 whereby the application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) by the respondent, who is the son of the applicant, has been allowed and the learned Family Court has ordered the Principal of the School where the applicant is posted, to recover a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month from his salary and to deposit it in the account of mother of the respondent. 2. This revision petition came up for hearing for the first time before this Court on 23.09.2015 on which date, while admitting the petition and summoning the records, it was observed that the payment of maintenance made during pendency of this petition shall be subject to final outcome of this petition. From perusal of the order sheets, it appears that thereafter, the matter was never listed and is being listed today. 3. The facts, in brief are that the applicant is the father of respondent. The applicant is posted as Head Master at Middle School, Dodidalha. The marriage between the applicant and one Pritima Burman was solemnized in the year 1993. They were blessed with a daughter and a son. After sometime, when dispute arose between the husband and wife, the wife started residing separately and in the year 2012, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and her minor daughter in which the learned Family Court, Katghora granted them maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4500/- per month. Subsequently, the son i.e. the respondent also filed an application for grant of maintenance and the learned Family Court, Janjgir-Champa passed an ex-parte order directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month till the respondent attains the age of 18 years, vide order dated 24.02.2015 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 140/2014. Thereafter, an application under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed as the applicant did not pay the maintenance amount as ordered by the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court, vide order dated 10.08.2015 has directed the Principal under whom the applicant is posted as Head Master, to deduct Rs. Thereafter, an application under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed as the applicant did not pay the maintenance amount as ordered by the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court, vide order dated 10.08.2015 has directed the Principal under whom the applicant is posted as Head Master, to deduct Rs. 6000/- from the salary of the applicant and to deposit the same in the account of the wife of the applicant i.e. the mother of respondent and the matter was directed to be listed on 14.09.2015. Accordingly, the applicant has filed this petition challenging the order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the learned Family Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order passed by the Court below is legal, just and proper warranting no interference. 5. Today also, when the case is called out, none appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the applicant. Even from perusal of the order dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure A/3) by which the application of the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided, in that proceeding also, the applicant failed to appear before the Court and accordingly, the learned Court below had to proceed ex-parte. Further, when the application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent before the Court below for payment of the maintenance amount as ordered by the learned Family Court, again the applicant remained absent from the proceedings on 10.08.2015 and on the earlier date also i.e. 27.07.2015. Though an application for condonation of his absence was filed on 10.08.2015, but the conduct of the applicant itself shows that he has nothing to say in this matter and is adopting delaying tactics. 6. The non-appearance of the applicant before the Court below is nothing but an attempt to prolong the litigation and to shirk from the responsibility of payment of maintenance amount. The applicant has not made out any case for interference as the learned Family Court has awarded maintenance amount to the respondent son only till he attains the age of 18 years. It is not the case of the applicant that he is not the father of respondent and as such, he has bound to make the payment for maintenance of his son. The applicant has not raised any ground as to why the order of the learned Court below should be set aside. 7. It is not the case of the applicant that he is not the father of respondent and as such, he has bound to make the payment for maintenance of his son. The applicant has not raised any ground as to why the order of the learned Court below should be set aside. 7. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. The same being just and proper, needs no interference and accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.