HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 111 of 2003 Dabbal Singh Bisht S/o Sri Jitar Singh, R/o Akaswani Mussoorie, F.M., District Dehradun. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1.State of Uttarakhand , 2.Smt. Kamla Bisht W/o Sri Dabbal Singh Bisht, 3.Km. Ritika Bisht (Minor) D/o Sri Dabbal Singh Bisht, 4.Master Rahul (Minor) S/o Sri Dabbal Singh Bisht, respt. 2 to 4 r/o C/o Sri Pratap Singh Ramola, Sirkot Ganganali, Badrinath Marh, Patti Katulsyun, Tehsil Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal, O.P. nos. 2 & 3 minors under the guardianship of Their mother and natural guardian, Smt. Kamla Bisht, O.P. no.-2. ------- Respondents Ms. Geeta Parihar, holding brief of Sri L. Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri U.P.S. Negi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4. Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent no.1. Dated: July 15, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 26.07.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Case no. 3 of 2003 Smt. Kamla Bisht and others vs. Sri Dabbal Singh, whereby the revisionist-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,580/- per month to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 instead of Rs. 1,300/- per month from the date of filing the application, by 10th of each month. It is further directed to pay the arrears within 15 days. 2. Heard Ms. Geeta Parihar, holding brief of Sri L. Dobhal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri U.P.S. Negi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and Sri Harish Pujari, 2 learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent no.1 and perused the record. 3. From perusal of the record it reveals that the respondent no.2-wife filed a petition against the revisionist u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance with the averments that on a petition filed by her u/s 125 Cr.P.C. the revisionist- husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,300/- per month for the maintenance of his wife and two children. But the maintenance awarded is inadequate as the salary of the revisionist is Rs. 16,000/- per month besides it he earns Rs. 2,000/- per month from ancestral property, therefore keeping in view the needs of the respondent no.2 and her children, they may be granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,580/- per month according to their present requirements. The revisionist- husband contested the proceeding before the Trial Court and filed objection. He stated that the respondent no.2 is living separately with her children according to her own wishes. The revisionist tried to pacify her wife, but for no avail. The respondent-wife is highly qualified. He submitted that his income has been shown in exaggeration. Before the Trial Court, both the parties led their oral and documentary evidence. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the Trial Court vide his impugned judgment and order dated 26.07.2003 allowed the application of the wife-respondent no.2 and directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 7,580/- per month to the opposite parties nos. 2 to 4 instead of Rs. 1,300/- per month from the date of filing the application, by 10th of each month. It is further directed to pay the arrears within 15 days. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 have submitted that the dispute in between both the parties has been settled amicably outside the Court and the parties have entered into a compromise. Now the matter has finally 3 been settled. It is submitted that both the parties are ready that the case may be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at in between the revisionist and respondent nos.2 to 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, she does not intend to press the revision. It is submitted that as the revision has rendered infructuous, therefore the same may be dismissed as such. 5. Otherwise also, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 26.07.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. 7. The Stay order dated 04.08.2003 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 15.07.2008 NCM: