1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2010 Smt. Hansi Devi w/o Shri Ramesh @ Prem Prakash, D/O Shri J.C.Pant R/O Village Bhatronjkhan, P.S Bhatronj Distrcit Nainital …………… Revisionist Versus Ramesh @ Prem Prakash S/O Jai Kishan R/O Village Sauni, Tok Bajer Khera Patti Malla Silor, Thesil Ranikhet, Dist Almora, presently posted as soldier No. 13999 517-F-S E T/NA of Military Hospital Bhibholgiri C/O 56 APO, secundrabad ………….. Respondent Shri M.C.Pant, Advocate, present for the revisionist Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against judgment and order dated 19.04.2010, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in criminal Misc. Case No. 210 of 2009, whereby said court has dismissed the application under section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. (2) Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist got married to the respondent in the year 2005. She filed an 2 application under section 125 of Cr.P.C which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case 156 of 2008 on 08.09.2008. Said application was allowed ex parte on 06.02.2009 whereby the respondent was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month to the revisionist and daughter living with her. It appears that application under section 126 (2) of Cr.P.C was moved by the respondent (husband) for setting aside the ex parte order. Said application was allowed by the trial court vide its order dated 03.09.2009. (3) From the above facts, it is clear that since the ex parte order has already been set aside, and parties are litigating before the trial court on the application moved under section 125 of Cr.P.C, it can not be said that any amount directed to be paid under ex parte order is to be recovered now from the respondent. The grievance of the revisionist is that the recovery is to be made of entire amount from the date of application to the date with the ex parte order was set aside. In the opinion of this court the trial court has committed no error of law is dismissing the application of the revisionist moved under section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C as after the ex parte decree has been set aside no amount can be recovered paid under said order. It is pertinent to mention here that before filing of the 126 (2) of Cr.P.C, admittedly the revisionist had recovered the amount 3 payable till the date of earlier application moved under section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C. (4) In the above circumstances, this revision has no force. The same is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.07.05.2010 NP