HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 179 of 2004 Smt. Rumana Shabnam W/o Quazi Suhail Zafar, D/o Sri Bakhtiyaruddin R/o H-99, Shivalik Nagar, Phase-II, B.H.E.L. Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. -----Applicant/ Revisionist. Versus Quazi Suhail Zafar and another. ------- Respondents Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Smt. Mamta Bisht, learned A.G.A. for the State. Sri S.K. Mandal learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Dated: 9th April 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been directed against the judgment and order dated 01.10.2004 passed by learned Judge, Family Court Haridwar in Misc. Case no. 121 of 2004 ‘Quazi Suhail Zafar vs. Rumana Sabnam’ u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. whereby the Judge Family Court has recalled and set-aside its previous order dated 15.05.2004 passed in case no. 209 of 2003 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present revision, are that the revisionist Smt. Rumana Shabnam moved a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband (respondent no.1 in the instant revision) seeking maintenance. The respondent/husband although received information and took notice of the proceedings, but neither he turned up before the Court below nor he filed any objection. Having hearing learned counsel for the petitioner/ wife and perusing the evidence and material available on record the learned Judge Family Court allowed the petition of the revisionist moved u/s 125 Cr.P.C. ex-parte, vide his judgment dated 15.05.2004 and directed the respondent/ husband to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife/revisionist from the date she filed application i.e. 01.12.2003. Thereafter the respondent/husband filed Misc. case no. 121 of 2004 u/s 126(2) Cr.P.C. alongwith a delay condonation application seeking recall of the order dated 15.05.2004 with the averments that he resides at Kuwait and can not come to India due to contractual work. After hearing learned counsel for the parties the learned Judge Family Court condoned the delay in filing the Misc. Case no. 121/2004 subject to payment of Rs. 500/- and allowed the Misc. Case no. 121/2004 on cost of Rs. 500/- and passed order that the order ex- parte u/s 125 Cr.P.C. dated 15.05.2004 shall be deemed set-aside subject to payment of cost. Aggrieved with the judgment and order, the revisionist/ wife has come up in the present revision. 3. I have heard Sri Buwanesh Joshi Adv. holding brief of Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Smt. Mamta Bisht, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for respondent no.1/wife. 4. During the course of arguments, Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondent/husband made statement at bar that the parties have entered into a compromise outside the Court and the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. 5. On the basis of the statement made above at bar, Sri Buwanesh Joshi, Adv. holding brief of Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that as the parties have reached to an amicable settlement outside the Court, thus the revision has rendered infructuous and he does not want to press the revision at this stage. 6. Otherwise also, on perusal of the record and after going through the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order. The revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed being infructuous. (Dharam Veer, J.) NCM: