HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3156 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the revisionists during the course of the day, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Ashwani Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for O.P. No. 1 and Mr. Shiv Datta Yadav, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. 3.The revisionists, Smt. Urmila Yadav and another, have approached this Court by means of the present criminal revision challenging the validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras, (hereinafter referred as "Trial Court") in Case No. 607 of 2023, Smt. Urmila Yadav and another v. Awadhesh Singh, whereby the trial court rejected the application filed by the revisionists for realisation of arrears of maintenance. 4. The background of the matter is that the revisionists filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- per month. The said application was allowed ex parte on 19.02.2010, granting Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- per month to revisionist nos. 1 and 2 respectively, from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 05.10.2009. Thereafter, a recall application was filed by O.P. No. 2, and by order dated 31.03.2013, a fresh order was passed directing O.P. No. 2 to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to revisionist no. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- per month to revisionist no. 2. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, O.P. No. 2 preferred a criminal Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashwani Kumar Yadav, Irfan Chaudhary, Srijan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Ram Sanehi Yadav, Shive Datta Yadav Smt. Urmila Yadav And Another .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) revision for enhancement/reconsideration of the maintenance amount, while another criminal revision was also filed praying for reversal of the order. Both revisions were allowed by order dated 09.10.2013 and the matter was remitted to the trial court for fresh decision. Against the said order, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 25465 of 2013, Smt. Urmila and another v. Awadhesh Singh, was filed by the revisionists. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 17.02.2022 by a coordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to the trial court to decide the matter expeditiously. It was further directed that till the final decision, O.P. No. 2 shall pay maintenance to the revisionists at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month. It was also directed that the interim order dated 20.12.2013 shall be complied with from March, 2022 onwards within seven days, and the amount already paid shall be adjusted in the final decision of the case. Thereafter, the case was finally decided on 26.09.2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hathras. The same was challenged by O.P. No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2024, Awadhesh Singh v. State of U.P. and others, before this Court, which was dismissed on 02.08.2024 by a coordinate Bench of this Court, holding that no interference was warranted in the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court. On 17.10.2023, the revisionists moved an application before the trial court for recovery of arrears by taking aid of the order dated 17.02.2022 passed in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Writ Petition. The learned trial court observed that Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C., which relates to maintenance of wife, children and parents, provides that payment of maintenance may be recovered by issuance of a recovery warrant in terms of the proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that after the order of this Court dated 17.02.2022, the trial court decided the matter vide order dated 26.09.2023. Therefore, in the light of the order dated 17.02.2022, the amount already paid by O.P. No. 2 was to be adjusted in the final decision of the case. The words used in the order dated 17.02.2022, namely, “the amount already paid be also adjusted in the final decision of the case”, according to learned counsel, indicate that the limitation for recovery of arrears of maintenance would start from the date of final judgment, i.e. 26.09.2023. Thus, the application dated 17.10.2023 filed for recovery of arrears was within one month of the final order. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed erroneously and is liable to be set aside. CRLR No. 3156 of 2025 2 7. Per contra, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has vehemently opposed the revision and submitted that the proviso contained in Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. provides that an application for recovery of arrears of maintenance has to be filed within one year from the date on which the amount becomes due. Therefore, no application for recovery of arrears can be filed after lapse of one year from the date on which the said amount accrued. It is further submitted that no judicial order can be passed contrary to the statute without assigning cogent reasons. It is further contended that the words used in the order dated 17.02.2022, namely, “the amount already paid by the respondent be also adjusted in the final decision of the case”, would be helpful to the revisionists only if the trial court, while passing the judgment dated 26.09.2023, had ordered that maintenance would be payable from any previous date, i.e. from the date of institution, or from any date other than the date of final judgment. However, the order dated 26.09.2023 does not give retrospective effect to the newly fixed amount of maintenance. According to the order dated 26.09.2023, Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- are payable to revisionist nos. 1 and 2 respectively from 26.09.2023. In such circumstances, the order dated 17.02.2022 cannot extend the period of limitation for filing a claim for recovery of arrears. It is further submitted that the revisionists moved an application for recovery of arrears of maintenance and the same was decided in Lok Adalat on 11.02.2023, wherein the trial court passed the following order : " िदनांक : 11.02.2023 पत्रावली लोक अदालत में पेश हुयी। प्रस्तुत बाद अन्तगर्त धारा 125(3) द०प्र०सं० के अधीन भरण पोषण वाद संख्या 256/2019 श्रीमती उिमला आिद बनाम अवधेश िसह में पािरत आदेश िदनांक 21.01.2013 के अधीन भरण पोषण के बकाया रािश की वसूली हेतु संिस्थत िकया गया। उक्त भरण पोषण आदेश के िवरूद्ध पुनरीक्षण में पािरत आदेश के िवरुद्ध माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा यािचका संख्या 25465/2013 में पािरत आदेश िदनांक 17.02.2022 द्वारा पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुसार उक्त भरण पोषण वाद में पुनः दोनों पक्षों की सुनवाई कर आदेश पािरत करने का िनदेर्श है, िजसके अनुसार मूल भरण पोषण वाद में पािरत आदेश अिस्तत्व में नहीं है। अतः भरण पोषण की वसूली हेतु संिस्थत प्रस्तुत वाद आधारहीन / उद्देश्यहीन हो गया है। अतः प्रस्तुत वाद आधारहीन / उद्देश्यहीन होने के कारण िनस्तािरत िकया जाता है। पत्रावली िनयमानुसार दािखल दफ्तर हो।" The order dated 11.02.2023 was passed in Lok Adalat and is not challengeable in the normal course of law, and even today there is nothing CRLR No. 3156 of 2025 3 on record to show that the said order has been challenged before any forum, meaning thereby that the order dated 11.02.2023 has attained finality. It has been held in the said order that the order dated 21.01.2013 had no legal existence by virtue of the order of the Revisional Court as well as the High Court in the aforesaid petition. Therefore, the claim made under the order dated 21.01.2013 was held to be baseless and purposeless. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, the revisionists cannot claim any arrears under the order dated 21.01.2013. Only after the order dated 17.02.2022 passed by this Court in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Writ Petition could the amount of maintenance be claimed, and no arrears prior to the said order can be claimed. Hence, the application for realization of arrears filed by the revisionists before the trial court was not only barred by limitation but was also baseless. Therefore, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, it appears that the maintenance application of the respondent was initially allowed ex parte. Thereafter, upon opportunity being given to both parties, the matter was again decided on merits on 21.01.2013. The said order was challenged before the revisional court, i.e. the Sessions Judge, Hathras. The revisional court set aside the judgment and order dated 21.01.2013. The order of the revisional court was challenged in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Writ Petition, which came to be finally decided on 17.02.2022, whereby the order of the revisional court was upheld and a direction was issued that Rs. 30,000/- per month shall be paid by O.P. No. 2 by the seventh day of each month. It was further directed that the amount already paid by the respondent shall be adjusted in the final decision of the case. The ambiguity in the matter arose because of the words “the amount already paid shall be adjusted in the final decision of the case”. However, once the order of the revisional court was affirmed by this Court and the challenge to the order of remand was rejected, the order passed by the revisional court remained operative. Consequently, with effect from the order of the revisional court dated 09.10.2013, the order of the trial court dated 21.01.2013 lost its existence. It is a settled principle that an interim order merges into the final order. Therefore, if the final order is against the party claiming benefit under the interim order, no right survives under such interim order. However, if any CRLR No. 3156 of 2025 4 interim order was passed by this Court in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Writ Petition, such interim order stood merged with the final order dated 17.02.2022. Accordingly, if any amount under the interim order remained unpaid till the passing of the order dated 17.02.2022, the same cannot be claimed after lapse of one year. The revisionists’ claim for arrears of maintenance had already been rejected by the trial court in Lok Adalat, and the said order remained unchallenged. Therefore, the revisionists were not entitled to claim the same again under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. after the passing of the final order dated 26.09.2023. Consequently, the present criminal revision has no force. 9. In view of the above, the trial court has not failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, nor has it committed any material irregularity. 10. It is accordingly dismissed. April 27, 2026 RPD CRLR No. 3156 of 2025 5 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad