IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.208 of 2008 Smt. Suman Adhikari w/o Lalit Adhikari … Revisionist Versus Lalit Adhikari S/o Gopal Singh Adhikari … Respondent Dated: December 15, 2008 Ms. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for the revisionist Mr. R.S. Rautela, Advocate for the respondent HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.31/2008, Lalit Adhikari Vs. Suman Adhikari and another. 2. Ms. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for the revisionist and Mr. K.S. Rautela, Advocate for the respondent are present. Perused the entire material available on file. 3. In brief the facts of case are that revisionist-Smt. Suman Adhikari moved an application before CJM, Nainital with a prayer that for her residing and her maintenance, she needs interim relief. The said case was registered as Misc. Case No.20/2008, Suman Adhikari Vs. Lalit Adhikari and another. The said application moved by the revisionist was allowed by CJM, Nainital vide his order dated 25.7.2008 by which the respondent-Lalit Adhikari was directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance as well as a separate room for the residing of revisionist at Champawat. Against that order, respondent-Lalit Adhikari preferred an appeal before Sessions Judge, Nainital. The said appeal was partly allowed by the judgment and order dated 20.8.2008 and by the said order, the respondent-appellant has been directed to pay Rs.3,500/- per month plus Rs.1,000/- per month in lieu of revisionist’s residing at respondent’s house. Against the said judgment and order dated 20.8.2008, the revisionist-Smt. Suman Adhikari has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Sri K.S. Rautela, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Misc. Criminal Case No.20/2008 in which the interim relief application was moved by the revisionist, has been dismissed by CJM, Nainital vide his order dated 12.9.2008. For that, a certified copy of the order dated 12.9.2008 has also been filed by learned counsel for the respondent. In reply, Ms. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that this fact was not in her knowledge at the time of filing the revision before this Court that the Misc. Case No.20/2008 has been dismissed by CJM, Nainital vide his order dated 12.9.2008. She further submitted that even her client had not informed her about the said fact. Hence, she prayed that she does not want to press the revision and prayed that the revision may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed as not pressed. (Dharam Veer, J.) December 15, 2008 Rajeev Dang