IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.3053 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 19, 2011 Shankar Paswan ...Petitioner Versus Bimla Devi & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sanjay Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. As already noticed, the impugned order was passed on 6.10.2010 granting maintenance of ` 5,000/- to the respondents. This revision is filed with a delay of one year. When the counsel made a submission that there is a scope of compromise, he was required to show his bonafide by depositing part of the arrears, so that the respondents could be summoned to settle the matter amicably, if it was possible. Counsel says that the petitioner is not in a position to deposit any arrears. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in this case, which is filed with a delay of almost one year. The petitioner has to first comply with the direction to deposit the arrears. No case for interference, thus, is made out. Dismissed. December 19, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE