IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 134 OF 2008 Virendra Kumar S/o Sri Balak Ram, R/o Manak Singh, Police Chowki Nayagaon, P.S. Patelnagar, Distt. Dehradun. ……… Revisionist Versus Smt. Mahendri Devi W/o Virendra Kumar, R/o village Dhoolkot, P.O. Selakui, District Dehradun. .……….Respondent Dated: August 26 , 2008 Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under section 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, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in case no. 519/2002 Smt. Mahendri Devi vs. Virendra Singh, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application of the wife-respondent ex- parte, filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the husband-revisionist and directed him to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to his wife as maintenance from the date of filing the application. I have heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. At the stage of hearing the revision on admission, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that challenging the impugned order dated 24.08.2007 the revisionist has already moved application u/s 126 (2) Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun as provided under Section 2 126(2) Cr.P.C., hence it is submitted that the revision is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed as such. He has further drawn attention of the Court towards para-6 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Mahendri Devi, in which it is specifically mentioned that the revisionist has already challenged the ex-parte judgment and order dated 24.08.2007 through an application u/s 126 (2) Cr.P.C., moved before the Court below, therefore the instant criminal revision is not maintainable before this Court. Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that as the application seeking for setting-aside the ex-parte judgment and order dated 24.08.2007 is still pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun and the same order is also under challenge before this Court. In these circumstances he has submitted that the present revision may be dismissed directing the Principal Judge, Family Court that the Court below shall decide the application moved u/s 126 (2) Cr.P.C. pending before him expeditiously because recovery process, on the basis of the impugned order dated 24.08.2007, is continuing against him. After considering the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed as such. However, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun is directed that the application moved u/s 126 (2) Cr.P.C. shall be decided expeditiously as early as possible. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 26.08.2008 NCM