Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38392 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 560 of 2025 Revisionist :- Suraj Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rahul Roshan Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushant Singh Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. 1. Sri Sushant Singh, Advocate filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.2, which is taken on record. 2. As per office report, the revisionist has deposited Rs.2,50,000/- .in deference to the order dated 20.05.2025. 3. In deference to the order dated 20.05.2025, the revisionist and respondent no.2 are present in person before this Court. 4. On query being put, respondent no.2 categorically states that she does not want any mediation in the matter because twice the mediation had held earlier, despite going with the revisionist after mediation, he had not treated her properly and he has also levelled several allegations against respondent no.2. She further states that the revisionist had also hacked her mobile phone and made certain massages the benefit of which he is trying to seek on the ground that respondent no.2 has stated for divorce in the matter whereas the revisionist submits that he has not hacked the mobile phone of respondent no.2 and the allegations of the respondent no.2 are baseless. 5. In view of the above, since respondent no.2 is not ready for mediation in the matter dispite efforts and only ground argued is that there are chance of settlement through mediation,as recorded in the order dated 20.05.2025 and no other ground has been argued, the revision is liable to be dismissed. The order dated 20.05.2025 is extracted herein below:- “1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State. 2. By means of this revision under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act the revisionist has challenged the judgement and order dated 15.4.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur in Crl. Case No. 739/2021 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Principal Judge has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of filing. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that there are chances of settlement through mediation process. 4. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date. 5. List on 7.7.2025, on which date revisionist and opposite party no.2 shall appear in person. 6. In case the revisionists deposits Rs. 2,50,000/- within three weeks before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Lucknow, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist in terms of the impugned order dated 15.4.2025. 7. It is made clear that if the revisionist fails to deposit the said amount the benefit of the order shall not be available to him.” 6. In view of the above, since the respondent no.2 is not ready for mediation at any cost and no other grounds has been pressed, the revision is dismissed accordingly. The money deposited by the revisionist before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, shall be released and paid to respondent no.2 on an application moved by her giving account details which shall be transferred in her account after verification, which shall be adjusted towards amount of maintenance to be paid by the revisionist to the respondent no.2 under the impugned order. . (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 7.7.2025 dk/ Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench