IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.192 of 2006 Vikram S/o Hariram … Revisionist Versus Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardwar and others … Respondents Dated: November 10, 2008 Mr. Rajendra Singh, Adv. for the revisionist Mr. M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State/Respondent No.1 No one appears for respondent nos.2 and 3 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 29.09.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardwar in Misc. Case No.71 of 2005, Smt. Ravita and others Vs. Vikram. 2. Mr. Rajendra Singh, Adv. for the revisionist and Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent No.1 are present. No one appears for respondent nos.2 and 3. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that in Case No.39/2004, Smt. Ravita Vs. Vikram, vide order dated 1.3.2005, the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.2-Smt. Ravita and Rs.500/- per month to respondent no.3-Ravi, in total Rs.1,500/- per month towards maintenance from the date of application. Since, the revisionist did not comply with the order, hence the respondent no.2 moved an application u/s 125(3) of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the arrears from 9.3.2004 up till 9.9.2006 i.e. for 30 months, comes to Rs.45,000/- and the revisionist did not pay any amount towards maintenance and it was prayed that the revisionist be convicted for imprisonment. The revisionist appeared before the court and when the reason was asked from him for not paying the amount of maintenance, he shown his inability to pay the maintenance amount. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the material on record, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hardwar vide his order dated 29.9.2006 sentenced the revisionist to undergo simple imprisonment for 300 days for not paying the amount of maintenance. It was also directed that on depositing the entire payment by the revisionist, he shall be released forthwith from the jail. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.9.2006, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Sri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist stated before the Court that revisionist has been released from jail after completing his sentence as awarded against him by the court below. Hence, he submitted that the present revision has become infructuous and prayed that the same may be dismissed as such. 5. In view of the above-said submission advanced by counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has been released from jail after completing his sentence as awarded against him, the revision has been rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such. (Dharam Veer, J.) November 10, 2008 Rajeev Dang