2026:UHC:1152 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR No. 5 25 of 20 25 Hon 'ble Rak esh Th apliyal, J. 1. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. By the instant Criminal Revision, the revisionist-wife is challenging the order passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee dated 20.06.2025 in Misc. Case NO. 19 of 2023 and Misc. Case No. 254 of 2022. As per office report revision is well within time. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in compliance of the order dated 17.02.2026, he made an attempt to serve the respondent through electronic mode, and he personally talked to the father of the respondent, who informed that respondent is not using mobile and WhatsApp. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the learned Additional Family Judge, Roorkee, passed the impugned order dated 20.06.2025 in a very cursory manner and rejected the application for recovery of the arrears towards the maintenance on the ground that as an when the respondent- husband is medically fit, and also gets movable or immovable property, then the revisionist is free to move application for recovery of the amount towards maintenance. 5. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, submits that the Family Court, vide order dated 23.01.2023, granted interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/ - per month, out of which Rs. 2,000/ - is for the wife and Rs. 2,000/ - is for the daughter, who is living with the revisionist. He submits that despite the aforesaid order interim maintenance, not a single penny has been paid by the respondent to the revisionist. 2026:UHC:1152 6. Consequently, the application was moved before the Family Court for recovery of amount towards arrear of interim maintenance, but the same has been rejected by the Family Court by the order impugned. 7. He further argued that before the Family Court, the respondent-husband never put his appearance, however, on his behalf, his father put appearance, who filed an affidavit that the respondent-husband is not medically fit, and he is under treatment at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya, Hospital, New Delhi, and apart from this, the respondent-husband, have no source of income. 8. The order impugned has been passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee on 20.06.2025, and now more than eight months have been passed, therefore, this Court is of the view that let the Family Court decide both the applications registered as Misc. Case No. 19 of 2023 and Misc. Case No. 254 of 2024 afresh, taking into consideration that the revisionist is looking after her minor daughter, who is aged about 9 years, and she has also no source of income, 9. In such view of the matter, the instant criminal revision is disposed of finally by setting aside the order impugned passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee dated 20.06.2025 and remand the matter to the Family Court to decide both the applications registered as Misc. Case No. 19 of 2023 and Misc. Case No. 254 of 2024 afresh, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 20.02.2026 Nahid 2026:UHC:1152