Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40064 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 268 of 2025 Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anubhav Awasthi,Arpit Dwivedi,Prashant Mishra,Varsha Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. 1. The Vakalatnama filed by Shri Ram Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.2 is taken on record. 2. The parties are present in person in pursuance of the previous order passed by this Court. An amount of Rs.20,000/- has been deposited by the revisionist with the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the interim order dated 27.05.2025 has been granted on the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is ready to keep respondent no.2 with him as his wife and the respondent no.2 is ready to go with the revisionist from the Court premises. 4. On a query put by this Court, respondent no.2 states that she is ready to go and live with the revisionist. 5. The revisionist, on being asked, specifically states before this Court that he is not ready to keep respondent no.2 with him. However, he is ready to settle the dispute through mediation and he has been regularly paying her Rs.5,000/- per month in compliance of the impugned order and has also deposited Rs.20,000/- before this Court. 6. This highly belated revision has been filed with a reported delay of 1102 days, challenging the order dated 29.02.2020, by means of which, Rs.5,000/- has been fixed as an interim maintenance in proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act in Complaint Case No.621 of 2019 (Smt. Uma Sishodiya Vs. Amit Kumar) and the said amount is being deducted from salary of revisionist and paid to respondent no.2 regularly. Thus, once the impugned order has been executed and the interim maintenance is being paid from the salary of the revisionist to the respondent no.2, the question of challenging the executed order does not arise, that too with such a delay. The interim order has been obtained by misrepresenting to this Court that the revisionist is ready to keep respondent no.2 and that the matter can be settled. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 states that the revisionist is getting Rs.5,000/- as provided by the impugned order, but the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not being complied with by the revisionist and if he is not ready to keep the respondent no.2, the question of sending this matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court at this stage also does not arise. 8. The affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay also indicates that no ground for condonation of delay of such a long period, what to say of sufficient ground, has been shown. The affidavit indicates only serious allegations against respondent no.2 for seeking condonation of delay. Even thereafter, the interim order has been obtained by making a wrong statements before this Court. 9. In view of above, application (C.M. Application No.3 of 2025) for condonation of delay in filing the revision is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the revision is dismissed with a cost of Rs.20.000/-, the amount, which has already been deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. 10. The aforesaid amount shall be released and paid to respondent no.2 on an application made by her, giving her account details, after verification, which shall be transferred to her account within a period of two weeks from the date of application. ...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Haseen U. Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench