IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 292 of 1995 Date of Decision : May 11, 2010 Sushma Rani and another ....Petitioners Versus Ashok Kumar .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Sudhir Nar, Advocate for Mr. J.S.Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ramanjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioners had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of maintenance. Vide order dated 30.4.1994, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, accepted the application by granting an amount of Rs.500/- per month to Sushma Rani-petitioner and Rs.300/- per month to Ankur-petitioner as maintenance from that day. Against the said order, the petitioners filed a revision with a prayer that the order of maintenance be made effective from the date of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and not from the date of the aforementioned order whereas the respondent filed a Crl. Revision No. 292 of 1995 -2- separate revision wherein he prayed for setting aside of the aforementioned order and dismissal of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 12.1.1995, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala partly allowed the revision filed by the respondent by setting aside the maintenance order qua Sushma Rani-petitioner while that qua Ankur- petitioner was confirmed. The revision filed by the petitioners was also partly accepted by granting maintenance to Ankur-petitioner from the date of the application whereas such a prayer made on behalf of Sushma Rani-petitioner was dismissed. The present revision had been filed against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, on the revision filed by Ashok Kumar-respondent, whereby the order passed by the trial Court qua Sushma Rani-petitioner was set-aside whereas that qua Ankur-petitioner was confirmed. Therefore, in the present revision, the question of maintenance is required to be decided in respect of Sushma Rani- petitioner and not qua Ankur-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that Sushma Rani- petitioner has already expired and, therefore, the present revision has become infructuous. Disposed of as such. ( T.P.S.MANN ) Crl. Revision No. 292 of 1995 -3- May 11, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1