IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 94 OF 2005 Ram Gopal ……… Revisionist Versus Judge Family Court & two others. .……….Respondents Dated: October 21 , 2008 None for the revisionist. Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos.1 & 3. None for respondent no.2. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been directed against the order dated 23.12.2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in case no. 143/04 Smt. Alka vs. Ram Gopal by which the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent no.2 was allowed on the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month as interim maintenance. In this revision the order dated 08.04.2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Misc. case no. 48 of 2005 Alka vs. Ram Gopal is also under challenge, by which the petition filed by the revisionist u/s 127 Cr.P.C., to set-aside the order dated 23.12.2004 passed in case no. 143/04 Smt. Alka vs. Ram Gopal, was rejected. 2. List has been revised. None is present either on behalf of the revisionist or for the respondent no.2-wife. I have heard Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 3 and perused the record. 3. The impugned orders have been assailed on the ground that the trial court has decided the case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. ex- parte; the petitioner willfully avoided to live with the 2 revisionist; the revisionist is maintaining both the children and while awarding the maintenance the court below has overlooked the monetary aspect. None is present to press the revision. I have gone through the impugned orders dated 23.12.2004 as also the order dated 08.04.2005 and perused the record. Vide order dated 23.12.2004 the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife-respondent no.2 was allowed on the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month as interim maintenance which in my opinion is justified and correct as per the law and does not warrant interference by this Court. Vide order dated 08.04.2005 the petition filed by the revisionist-husband u/s 127 Cr.P.C. seeking set-aside the order dated 23.12.2004 passed in case no. 143/04 Smt. Alka vs. Ram Gopal, was rejected. In my opinion, this order also justified and does not warrant interference. On perusal of the impugned orders, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 21.10.2008 NCM: