CRLR No. 22 of 2010 With Stay App. No. 75 / 10 Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate present for the revisionist. Heard. The revisionist has challenged the order dated 29.10.2009, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Criminal Cases No. 173 of 2009, 170 of 2002, 490 of 2002, 329 of 2005, 61 of 2006, 305 of 2008, 418 of 2008 and 63 of 2009. The aforesaid cases filed before the Principal Judge, Family court, Dehradun, appeared to have been instituted by respondent Roshni Devi, wife of the revisionist, for recovery of the maintenance awarded by the trial court. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the composite order passed by the court below is erroneous in law. However, this Court does not find any illegality in the order on that ground. The second contention advanced on behalf of the revisionist is that daughter of the parties namely Rajini has become major in the year 2002, and thereafter, the revisionist is not liable to make payment of maintenance unless any disability is shown. Also, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that maintenance already paid by the revisionist should have been taken into account, while passing the impugned order. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist, this revision is summarily disposed of with the observation that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, while issuing the recovery warrants, as directed vide order dated 29.10.2009, shall deduct the amount already paid by the revisionist towards maintenance and shall also consider the fact that the maintenance is recovered only in respect of period when the child was minor. (Stay Application No. 75 of 2010 also stands dismissed). (P.C. P., J.) 19.02.2010 HN