IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Criminal Misc. Application No. 41 of 2003 Govind Prasad Purohit S/o Late Data Ram Purohit, R/o Village Simult Patwari Circle Bainoli, Tehsil Karanprayag (Now Gairsain) District Chamoli. ……..Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. Smt. Sushila Devi W/o Govind Prasad Presently residing at her parental House at Village Dharkot, Patwari Circle Chopra Tehsil Rudraprayag, District Rudraprayag. 3. Master Rohit (minor) S/o Govind Prasad Through his mother natural guardian Smt. Sushila Devi …. Respondents. Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 3. Dated: 07.01.2008. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner, which is husband of respondent No.2 and father of respondent No.3, has challenged the order dated 3.1.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag, in Criminal Revision No. 10/2002, Govind Prasad Vs. State and another, as well as the order dated 26.11.2002, passed by C.J.M. Rudraprayag, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1/2002, Sushila Devi Vs. Govind Prasad. 2- Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this petition are that an application was filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 against the petitioner U/S 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and that application was allowed vide judgment order dated 26.11.2002 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) / Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag, thereby directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- per month to Smt. Sushila Devi, wife of the petitioner, and Rs. 200/- per month to Rohit, son of the petitioner. It was, however, directed that the maintenance for a sum of Rs. 200/- per month would be paid to Rohit, son of the petitioner, till he attains the age of 18 years. 3- Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred revision and the learned Sessions Judge after having considered the entire material on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the revision vide judgment and order dated 3- 1-2003. 4. The petitioner has, thus, approached this court by way of this petition, for quashing the orders passed by the learned Magistrate, as well as the learned Sessions Judge Rudraprayag. 5. Heard Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record. 6- Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has invited my attention towards the judgment dated 10-8-2006 passed by C.J.M., Rudraprayag and this judgment reveals that a petition U/S 127 Cr.P.C. was filed by Smt. Sushila Devi for revising the amount of maintenance and the learned C.J.M. allowed that application and directed the husband Govind Prasad to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month instead of Rs. 400/- per month as was directed earlier. 7- Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the existence of this judgment. However, he has submitted that merely for the reason that the order has been passed by the C.J.M., on an application filed by the wife under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. the judgment passed by the Court earlier in a proceeding U/S 125 Cr.P.C. will not attain finality and the petition only on account of the reason that the maintenance allowance has been enhanced in a proceeding U/S 127 Cr.P.C., will not become infructuous. I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the judgment has been passed by the court of a competent jurisdiction on an application filed by Smt. Sushila Devi, the wife of the petitioner, U/S 127 Cr.P.C., the order passed by the court concerned in the proceeding U/S 125 Cr.P.C. will automatically merge therein. The order U/S 127 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that the same has been passed after hearing the counsel for both the parties and having considered the material available on record. Under these circumstances the petition, by which the earlier orders U/S 125 Cr.P.C. have been challenged, has become infructuous. 8- Therefore, the petitions is dismissed being infructuous. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB