IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2010 Rajesh Kumar S/o Yashpal R/o New Madho Nagar Garhi Maluk –2, P.S. Kotwali, District Saharanpur. ...…………. Revisionist Versus 1. Principal Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. 2. Smt. Geeta W/o Rajesh Kumar D/o Seetal Prasad 3. Master Shaurabh S/o Rajesh Kumar Through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Geeta, Both R/o near Durga Mandir Haridwar Marg, Rishikesh, Police Station IDPL, Veer Bhadra, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. ...…………. Respondents Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocate for the revisionist. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) This revision is directed against the order dated 20th of November 2009, passed by Addl. Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 18 of 2008, whereby it has directed to issue the recovery warrant for recovery of the maintenance awarded in favour of the 2 respondent No. 2 Smt. Geeta and respondent No. 3 Master Saurabh. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist Rajesh Kumar got married to respondent No. 2 Geeta on 06.05.2001. Out of the wedlock, on 03.06.2002, a son (respondent No. 3 Saurabh) was born. The respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), which was registered as Case No. 13 of 2004, in which respondents No. 2 and 3 prayed for a maintenance amounting to Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is pleaded in the application that the respondent No. 2 was ill-treated by the petitioner, and made to leave her matrimonial house. The trial court (Addl. Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh) after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, on 03.12.2005, decided the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and directed the revisionist Rajesh Kumar to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to his wife Geeta and Rs. 1,000/- per month to his son Saurabh. 4) Earlier, Rajesh Kumar filed Criminal Revision No. 236 of 2007, challenging the order awarding the maintenance. Said revision was partly allowed by this Court vide its order dated 29.12.2007, directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 800/- per month to respondent No. 2 and Rs. 400/- per month to respondent No. 3 (in all Rs. 1,200/- per month) by 10th of every month. The arrears 3 were also directed to be paid within two months from 29.12.2007. It appears that the revisionist had committed default in payment of maintenance even at that rate. Consequently, the recovery proceedings were initiated under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and recovery warrant was directed to be issued by the trial court vide its impugned order dated 20.11.2009. 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist and after going through the papers on record, this Court does not find any illegality in the order, passed by the Addl. Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, for recovery of the maintenance as directed to be paid by this Court vide its order dated 29.12.2007, passed in Criminal Revision No. 236 of 2007. 6) Therefore, the revision is dismissed with the observation that the revisionist is allowed to pay arrears of maintenance within a period of two months from today (adjusting the amount already paid), failing which the recovery proceedings as directed by the trial court shall proceed further. The time allowed for payment of arrears is without prejudice to the rights of the parties relating to recovery of future maintenance. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 12, 2010. H. Negi 4