IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 214 of 2006 Abrar Ahmad .…. Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & Ors. ……… Respondents August 10, 2010 None for the revisionist. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2006 and 28.9.2006 passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee in Criminal Misc. Case No. 101/2006, Abrar Ahmad v. Roshanara u/s 126(2) CrPC. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 Smt. Roshanara moved an application under Section 127 CrPC for enhancing the maintenance amount, which was allowed vide ex parte order dated 22.4.2006 passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee and the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. 1500/- per month from Rs. 600/- per month. Thereafter revisionist moved an application under Section 126(2) CrPC to recall the aforesaid order dated 22.4.2006 and this application was allowed by the learned Additional Family Judge, Roorkee vide order dated 28.9.2006 on the condition that the revisionist shall pay Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent no. 2 out of the outstanding amount of Rs. 34,000/-. When the revisionist has not complied with the aforesaid order dated 28.9.2006 and has not even came in the trial court thereafter, then the Misc. Case No. 101/2006, Abrar Ahmad v. Smt. Roshanara was dismissed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee vide order dated 24.11.2006 for want of compliance of the order dated 28.9.2006. Against the aforesaid orders dated 28.9.2006 and 24.11.2006, the revisionist has preferred this revision. 3. It reveals from the perusal of the aforesaid orders dated 28.9.2006 and 24.11.2006 passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee that when the proceedings were going on in the application under Section 127 CrPC for enhancement of maintenance amount, the revisionist did not appear before the trial court to produce the evidence in rebuttal and thereafter ex parte proceedings were drawn against him and vide order dated 22.4.2006, the aforesaid application was allowed and maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs. 600/- per month to Rs. 1500/- per month. Thereafter revisionist moved an application under Section 126(2) CrPC for recall of the aforesaid order dated 22.4.2006, which was allowed vide order dated 28.9.2006 on the condition that the revisionist shall pay Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent no. 2 as the maintenance amount out of Rs. 34,000/- which was due to her. But the revisionist neither paid the said amount to the respondent no. 2 nor ever come in the trial court thereafter. Therefore, the application under Section 126(2) CrPC filed by the revisionist was dismissed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee vide order dated 24.11.2006 for want of compliance of the conditional order dated 28.9.2006. 4. On perusal of the aforesaid two orders dated 28.9.2006 and 24.11.2006 passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee and for the reasons stated above, I do not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid impugned orders. Hence, revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Resultantly, the revision is dismissed. Interim order dated 8.12.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 10.8.2010 PRABODH 2