HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8860 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. On 21st January, 2026, this Court had set aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, District Bareilly to decide the application under Section 144 BNSS afresh, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, and Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1451 as well as by this Court in Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi (2023) SCC OnLine All 2684. Thereafter, the matter was directed to be listed on 11th February, 2026, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the order dated 21st January, 2026. 2. However, neither the said order was complied with nor any compliance report was submitted before this Court. Consequently, vide order dated 11th February, 2026, this Court, in the interest of justice and to uphold the authority of its judicial directions, granted a further opportunity to the learned Court concerned to strictly comply with the directions contained in the earlier order dated 21st January, 2026. 3. Pursuant thereto, a report has been submitted by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, District Bareilly. The report indicates that on 7th February, 2026, after hearing the revisionist, the matter was proceeded with and an ex-parte order was subsequently passed on 10th February, 2026. However, a copy of the order dated 10th February, 2026 has neither been placed on record by the learned counsel for the revisionist nor forwarded along with the report by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Bareilly. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Darwari Lal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Resham Pyari .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. In view of the fact that a fresh order has already been passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Bareilly, the grievance raised in the present revision appears to have been addressed. 5. Accordingly, the revision stands disposed of. 6. It is, however, provided that in the event the revisionist is still aggrieved, it shall be open to him to avail appropriate legal remedy by filing a fresh petition in accordance with law. February 24, 2026 Shafique CRLR No. 8860 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad