( 2025:HHC:33212 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Revision (FC) No.12 of 2025 Decided on: 22nd September, 2025 Hari Krishan and others .......petitioners versus Rachna ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr.Ram Krishan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms.Kiran Kanwar, Advocate. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for want of sufficient means to pay the arrears of maintenance, the petitioners could not deposit the same and, therefore, he prays to hear the matter without deposit of the arrears. 2. On 02.05.2025, a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court had directed the petitioners to deposit entire arrears of maintenance before hearing the petitioners and the matter was adjourned with the direction to the Registry to list 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:33212 ) 2 the matter as and when arrears of maintenance would be deposited by the petitioners. 3. Thereafter, matter was listed on 04.08.2025, however, on that day, the matter was adjourned for 18.08.2025 on the request made by learned counsel for the petitioners to enable him to have complete instructions with respect to payment/deposit of entire arrears of maintenance, as ordered on the previous date. 4. On 18.08.2025, learned counsel representing the petitioners had informed the Court that the petitioners were not coming forward to impart instructions and the matter was adjourned to enable him to have instructions by next date i.e. 05.09.2025. 5. On 05.09.2025, the petitioners changed the Advocate and Mr.Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioners. On that day, further one week’s time was granted to deposit the entire arrears of maintenance, as already ordered on previous dates and matter was adjourned for today. 6. Today, Mr.Ram Krishan Sharma, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners with the submissions that the petitioners are poor persons, whereas, respondent is ( 2025:HHC:33212 ) 3 serving in Navodya school and the petitioners are not able to deposit the arrears of maintenance and, therefore, matter be heard on merits. 7. Nothing material has been placed before us to substantiate the plea taken today for exempting the petitioners from depositing the arrears of maintenance, as directed on the previous dates. Even offer to pay some part of arrears of maintenance has not been made. 8. No change in the circumstances for recalling or reviewing/modifying the order dated 02.05.2025 is available on record. 9. Therefore, for want of compliance of order passed on 02.05.2025 and orders passed subsequent thereto, we are constrained to dismiss this petition. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any, but with liberty to revive the petition by placing on record sufficient material for dispensing them from depositing the entire arrears of maintenance. ( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge September 22, 2025 ( Sushil Kukreja ) (naveen) Judge