Lok Pal Singh, J.

Criminal revision no. 34 of 2011 has been preferred by the revisionist-husband against the order dated 29.01.2011, passed by learned Judge, Family court, Nainital, in Misc. criminal case no. 54 of 2009, Smt. Haripriya Mawri and another vs Mohan Singh Mawri, whereby learned Judge, Family Court has directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. from the date of filing of the application.

2. Criminal revision no. 77 of 2011 has been preferred by the wife against the judgment and order dated 29.01.2011, passed by learned Judge, Family court, Nainital, in Misc. criminal case no. 54 of 2009, Smt. Haripriya Mawri and another vs Mohan Singh Mawri, feeling aggrieved with the insufficiency of maintenance awarded to her.

3. Brief facts of the case are that marriage between Mohan Singh Mawri and Smt. Haripriya was solemnized on 15.01.1990 and one male child Khelendra Singh was begotten out of said wedlock on 27.10.1990. After marriage, differences crept in the matrimonial life of the parties. In the month of April 1991, the husband committed maar peet with his wife and ousted her from the house along with the infant. Since the husband was not maintaining the wife and the son properly, the wife was constrained to file application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 04.04.2009, claiming maintenance for herself and his son. It was mentioned by the wife in the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that the husband is getting salary of Rs.65,000/- per month, therefore, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance be awarded in favour of her and son.

4. Said application was contested by the husband by filing objections denying the averments made in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that the wife is living separately from him without any sufficient reason and her behaviour towards him was also cruel. It is also contended that the wife is earning a handsome amount being an agent of Post Office. The breakup of the commission earned by the wife during various financial years was sought by the husband under the Right to Information Act. The details of the same are as under:

5. The learned Judge, Family Court, Nainital after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence was pleased to award an amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month in favour of the wife Mrs. Haripriya Mawri from the date of filing of the application, vide judgment and order dated 29.01.2011, which is under challenge in both the aforesaid criminal revisions.

6. On filing the criminal revision by the husband, this Court passed an interim ex-parte order dated 22.02.2011, directing that if the revisionist-husband pays maintenance at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per month to his wife, recovery in respect of remaining Rs.4,500/- per month shall remain stayed, until further orders.

7. Against the order dated 22.02.2011, the revisionist-husband preferred petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) no.(s) 2745 / 2011, Mohan Singh Mawri vs Haripriya Mawri before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned order passed by this Court and dismissed the Special Leave Petition vide order dated 15.04.2011 requesting the High Court to expedite the hearing of the Revision Petition.

8. A request was made to this Court by Hon’ble Apex Court to decide the criminal revisions expeditiously, but when the matters were listed before learned Judge, the same could not be taken up and remained pending for a long period. It appears that the revisionist-husband also not apprised the Court about the request made by the Hon’ble Apex Court. When the matter came up before this Court and learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of t