IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.160 OF 2006 Shivanand Rastogi S/o Ram Gopal Rastogi R/o Mohalla Kauva Tola, Thana Siroli, District Bareily ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & another. ……… Respondents. Dated: July 25, 2008 Sri Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Sri M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred, 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 Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar in Misc. Criminal Application No.72 of 2006, Shivanand Rastogi Vs. Maya Devi, whereby the application moved by the revisionist under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been rejected. 2. Sri Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.K. Ray, learned counsel for respondent no.2 are present. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that Smt. Maya Devi moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar. The notice was issued to the revisionist through registered post with receipt with the remark that “addressee is not available at the address while going again and again”. Hence, the service was deemed to be sufficient and the matter was directed to be decided ex-parte. Learned Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar after hearing the counsel for the applicant/respondent and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as after perusing the documents filed by the respondent in support of her case, allowed the application moved by the respondent ex- parte and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 14.09.2005 by the 9th of each month. The arrears of Rs.19,194/- were also directed to be paid by the revisionist by paying Rs.5000/- per month as additional installment in addition to the amount of maintenance allowance. Against the said ex-parte order dated 9.1.2006, the revisionist moved an application before the Judge, Family Court along with application for condonation of delay in filing the said application, for setting aside the order dated 9.01.2006. In that application it was stated by the revisionist that the summons of the case was not served upon him. Hence, he could not get any information about the case. The applicant/respondent has filed her objection to the application moved by the revisionist and denied the contents of the application. The learned Judge, Family Court U.S. Nagar vide his judgment and order dated 12.9.2006 after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the Misc. Application No.72/2006 by the revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Against the said judgment and order dated 12.9.2006, the revisionist has preferred the present revision before this Court. 4. Sri Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri M.K. Ray for respondent no.2, both have jointly submitted before the Court that the matter has finally been decided outside the Court. Due to this reason, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he does not want to press his revision and prayed that the revision may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. Even otherwise, I have perused the judgment and order dated 12.9.2006 passed by the Court and I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the said judgment and order which requires any interference by this Court. 6. For the reasons recorded above the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 21.9.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 25.07.2008 Rajeev Dang