IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.121 of 2005 Mohd. Ameen @ Guddu … Revisionist Versus Smt. Shabana Parween @ Gudiya and another … Respondents Dated: December 10, 2008 Sri Abdul Wahid, Adv. for the revisionist Sri Anant Kumar Aggarwal, Adv. i/b Sri Sudhir Kumar, Adv. for respondents HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.05.2005 passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar in Misc. Criminal Application No.20 of 2004, Shabana Parvin Vs. Mohd. Amin @ Guddu, whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has directed the revisionist- Mohd. Ameen to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to Respondent No.1-Smt. Shabana Parveen and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No.2-Master Shalib, till he attains majority, in total Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of application i.e. 12.1.2004. The arrears from the date of application i.e. 12.1.2004 till the date of order i.e. 12.5.2005 amounting to Rs.24,000/- were also directed to be paid by the revisionist by paying Rs.2,000/- per month as additional installment along with the monthly amount of maintenance, till it is finally been paid. It was also directed that in case of three consecutive defaults, the respondent no.1 would be free to recover the entire amount in lump sum. The amount of maintenance was directed to be paid by the 12th of each month. 2. Sri Abdul Wahid, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anant Kumar Aggarwal, Adv. i/b Sri Sudhir Singh, counsel for respondents are present. Perused the entire material available in file. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that Respondent No.1-Smt. Shabana Parveen moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. inter-alia on the grounds that she got married with the revisionist in the month of March, 1993 according to Muslim Rituals and out of the said wedlock, she gave birth to three children. It was also stated in the application that in the past two years, the revisionist had gone to work in Saudi Arabia as a mason and he came back before seven months after earning ample money. Due to this reason, he started spending money lavishly. He also got some illicit relations with one Shama who is his neighbourer and got interested to marry with her. When the respondent no.1 opposed to it, then the revisionist started her physical harassment and also used to abuse her and also threatened to give divorce to her. It was further stated that before one month, some dispute arose between the parties due to which the respondent no.1 along with her three children were left by the revisionist at the Rudrarapur Roadways and also threatened to her life. On the intervention of uncle of respondent no.1, the revisionist took two children along with him. Thereafter in the Panchayat at Rampur, the revisionist also refused to take her. It was also stated that she is a less educated lady and does not know any work so as to maintain herself and her son. On the other hand, the revisionist was shown to have come from abroad and also shown to earn Rs.30,000/- per month by constructing buildings. Apart from this, it was stated that he lends money on interest from where he was shown to be earning Rs.20,000/- per month. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month (Rs.5,000/- per month for herself and Rs.5,000/- per month for her son) was sought as maintenance allowance by the respondent no.1 against the revisionist. The revisionist also filed his objection to the application moved by respondent no.1 and denied most of the averments made in the application. After considering the entire facts and circumstances and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar vide his judgment and order dated 12.5.2005 directed the revisionist as above. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 12.5.2005, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. Sri Abdul Wahid, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anant Kumar Aggarwal, Adv. i/b Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, both have jointly submitted that the matter has finally been decided outside the court and both the parties are living amicably with each other. Hence, Sri Abdul Wahid, Adv. for the revisionist submitted that he does not want to press his revision and prayed that the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. Even otherwise, I have perused the judgment and order dated 12.5.2005 passed by court below and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order. 6. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 13.6.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) December 10, 2008 Rajeev Dang