Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109286 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3184 of 2023 Revisionist :- Arshad Jama (Laik) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Atiqur Rahman Siddiqui,Chandrajeet Yadav,Kripa Shanker Pandey,Neeti Rahi,Swapnil Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dheeraj Kumar Singh,G.A.,Shamsuddin Ahmad Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Atiqur Rahman Siddiqui, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Dheeraj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned Brief Holder, for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist to set aside the impugned order dated 15.3.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoria in Maintenance Petition No. 100 of 2017 (Shama Parveen Vs. Arshad Jama (Laik) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which maintenance of Rs.12000/- per month was awarded in favour of opposite party no.2 from the date of application filed by the revisionist. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that by way of instant revision the revisionist, who is husband of opposite party no.2 challenged the order dated 15.3.2023 passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which he was directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per months as maintenance allowance to opposite party no.2. 4. He further submits that during pendency of the instant revision matter was referred to the High Court Mediation Centre of this Court and mediation has been succeeded between the parties and matter has been settled and now no dispute is pending between the parties. 5. He further submits that the report of High Court Mediation Centre is on record. 6. He further submits that no dispute is left between the parties and pursuant to the settlement revisionist has already made payment of entire amount to opposite party no.2, therefore, in the light of compromise the instant revision may be disposed of after quashing the order dated 15.3.2023. 7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also conceded the fact that matter has been settled between both the parties and no dispute is left. 8. He next submits that opposite party no.2 has also received entire amount pursuant to the settlement executed between the parties and he is not having any objection if impugned order dated 15.3.2023 is quashed. 9. Learned AGA has also submitted that as the matter primarily appears to be arose due to matrimonial dispute and both husband and wife already settled their dispute, therefore, instant revision may be disposed of in the light of their settlement. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. However, instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 15.3.2023, by which, a direction was given to the revisionist to pay maintenance allowance to his wife, i.e., opposite party no.2 but it reflects that matter was referred to the Mediation Centre and before Mediation Centre settlement has been executed between the parties and pursuant to the settlement, revisionist had made payment of entire amount to opposite party no.2 and, therefore, no dispute is left between the parties and opposite party no.2, i.e., wife of revisionist is having no objection if impugned order be set aside. 12. In view of the above, impugned order dated 15.3.2023 passed by court concerned under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside and the instant revision is allowed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad