No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS CRLR No. 35 of 2022 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Poonam, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 175 of 2016, whereby the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 5000/- to the respondent no. 1 and Rs. 3000/- to the respondent no. 2 per month, as maintenance. 4. When the matter was listed before this Court on 13.09.2023, this Court passed the following order:- “3. Mediation could not be successful. 4. Heard on Miscellaneous Application (IA No. 5 of 2023), filed by the revisionist. 5. Admittedly, the respondent no. 1 has received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) from the revisionist through Bank Draft No. 893987 dated 16.08.2023 of Punjab National Bank. 6. Revisionist - Amit Kumar undertakes that out of the outstanding Rs. 2,54,000/-, he will continue to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent no. 1 every month from 17.09.2023. 7. The said Miscellaneous Application (IA No. 5 of 2023) has not been opposed by Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.” 5. Thereafter, despite his undertaking, revisionist did not pay Rs. 50,000 to the respondent no. 1 every month. This Court passed the order dated 03.06.2025, whereby, revisionist was directed to deposit the entire arrear of the maintenance amount and further directed the revisionist to pay monthly maintenance amount by 7th day of each English calendar month. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 have submitted that despite above order passed by this Court, the revisionist has not paid any amount towards the arrear of maintenance, nor he is paying monthly maintenance. 7. The fact that the revisionist has not paid the arrears of maintenance and also is not paying the maintenance per month, is admitted by learned counsel for the revisionist. 8. In such view of the matter that the revisionist has consistently failed to comply the orders of this Court, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mahra J.) 29.08.2025 Ujjwal