Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22514 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 940 of 2024 Revisionist :- Ram Sewak Opposite Party :- Savitri And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Jai Shrinet Counsel for Opposite Party :- Maya Ram Yadav Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Jai Shrinet, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Maya Ram Yadav, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties. 2. By means of present revision u/s 19(4) of the Family Court Act, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order dated 07.06.2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitapur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 558 of 2023 - Smt. Savitri and Others Vs. Ram Sewak, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby interim maintenance has been awarded in favour of opposite parties. It is further prayed, that since the parties have entered into settlement agreement the aforesaid order may be set aside in the light of settlement agreement dated 03.03.2025. The settlement agreement is available on record. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that this Court by means of order dated 16.10.2024, directed the parties to appear before Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court on 23.10.2024 for participating in the mediation process. In compliance of aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the Mediation Center on the date fixed and after certain deliberations and discussion the parties arrived at settlement agreement and a report dated 03.03.2025, of the Mediation and Conciliation Center High Court Lucknow Bench, Lucknow to this effect has been submitted for perusal of this Court. Therefore, the impugned order passed in the aforesaid case may be set aside in view of the settlement agreement dated 03.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 9 SCC 653 and has submitted that the revisionist as well as opposite party no. 1 have settled the dispute and as such opposite party no. 1 does not want to litigate any further against the revisionist. 5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties has no objection in case the impugned order passed in the aforesaid case is set aside in the light of the settlement agreement dated 03.03.2025. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into settlement agreement and have settled their dispute amicably. 8. In this regard, the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State (supra), Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can set aside the impugned order, as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. 9. In the light of the fact that the settlement has arrived at between the revisionist and the private opposite parties and does not effect the public at large, and would only amount to private dispute between the parties, no useful purpose will be served will be served by allowing the revisionist to be prosecuted any further, therefore the impugned order dated 07.06.2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitapur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 558 of 2023 is hereby set aside, accordingly this revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act is allowed. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench