IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) CRIMINAL REVISION No.128 of 2007 Arvind Pal … Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and two others … Respondents (2) CRIMINAL REVISION No.13 of 2008 Mrs. Nitipal and another … Revisionists Versus State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents Dated: December 10, 2008 CRLR No.128/07 Sri Milind Raj, Advocate for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, brief holder for State Sri B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 CRLR No.13 of 2008 Sri B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the revisionists Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State Sri Milind Raj, Advocate for Respondent No.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Both these criminal revisions have been preferred against one common judgment and order and the parties in both these revisions are related to each other, hence both the revisions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Both these criminal revisions, preferred by the revisionists under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 21.03.2007 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case No.82/2005, Smt. Neeti Pal and another Vs. Arvind Pal, by which the revisionist in CRLR No.128/07 (Arvind Pal) has been directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to his wife-Smt. Neeti Pal and Rs.2,000/- per month to his son-Master Vasu (respondent nos.2 & 3 in CRLR No.128/07), in total Rs.4,000/- per month for their maintenance. 3. Heard Sri Milind Raj, Advocate for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, brief holder for State and Sri B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 in CRLR No.128/2007. Also heard Sri B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the revisionists, Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and Sri Milind Raj, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in CRLR No.13 of 2008 and perused the entire material available on record. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Smt. Neeti Pal moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance of herself and her son inter alia on the grounds that she got married with the revisionist-Arvind Pal on 6.12.2000 as per Hindu RITES and her father spent about Rs.6.00 lacs. It was also stated that soon after the marriage, revisionist-Arvind Pal and his family members started harassing her for the dowry. It was also stated that she tried to save her married life but all were in vain. On 24.6.2002, revisionist committed physical harassment of respondent no.2 due to which she received injuries on her body. In August, 2002, revisionist left her at her parental house and on 16.10.2002, she gave birth to a son-Master Vasu (respondent no.3). On 27.3.2003, revisionist took her along with her son and there he again started committed her physical and mental harassment and he also used to commit Marpit with her after consuming liquor. On 26.6.2003, she along with her son was left at her parental house by the brother of revisionist and since then she is residing at her parental house. It was further stated that she is unable to maintain herself and her son as she did not get any source of income. The revisionist was shown to be earning Rs.25,000/- per month from the business of Cooling Tower and Earthing Electrod. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month (Rs.6,000/- per month for herself and Rs.4,000/- for her son) was sought as maintenance against the revisionist-Arvind Pal. The revisionist also appeared before the court below and also filed his written statement and denied most of the averments made in the application. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 21.3.2007 directed the revisionist-Arvind Pal to pay Rs.2,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent No.2- Neeti Pal and Rs.2,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent No.3-Master Vasu, in total Rs.4,000/- per month for their maintenance. 5. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.3.2007, the revisionist-Arvind Pal has filed CRLR No.128 of 2007 for setting aside the aforesaid judgment and order. 6. CRLR No.13 of 2008 has been filed by Smt. Neeti Pal on behalf of herself and her son Master Vasu against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.3.2007 for enhancement of amount of maintenance. 7. Sri B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in CRLR No.128/2007 as well as counsel for revisionists in CRLR No.13/2008, has submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise. He has also filed the certified copy of the order-dated 30.5.2008 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Ghaziabad accepting the compromise arrived at in between the parties. Due to this reason, Sri B.S. Adhikari submitted that both the revisions have been rendered infructuous and may be dismissed as such. 8. In view of the aforesaid factual position of the case, both the revisions are accordingly dismissed as infructuous. Interim Order dated 22.6.2007 passed by this Court in CRLR No.128/2007 is hereby vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 10.12.2008 Rajeev Dang