Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Criminal Revision Petition No.1036 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioner Onkar Lal @ Onkar under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 311 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 5.5.2008 passed by Family Court, Kota in Case No.38/2002 whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected. Cr. Revision Petition No. 1292 of 2008 has been filed against the order dated 8.8.2008 of Family Court in Criminal Case No.38/2002 whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the non-petitioners was allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.1000/- each from 9.1.2002 to the non-petitioners 2 and 3 and Rs. 1500/- per month to the non-petitioner No.1 and Rs. 1250/- per month each to the non-petitioners No.2 and 3 and Rs. 1500/- per month to the non-petitioner No.1 total Rs.4,000/-. The Court also directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1500/- towards due payment to the wife till the arrears are not paid. The non-petitioners were also directed to recover the arrears of maintenance allowance as a whole if for any three months the amount of the maintenance is not paid to the non-petitioners. Criminal Revision Petition No.168 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.12.2008 of the Family Court Kota in Cr. Misc. Case No.71/2007 requesting the Sessions Judge Chittorgarh for deducting half of the amount of the pay drawn by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rasmi where the petitioner is posted and the same was directed to be sent through Demand Draft or Banker Cheque and further the matter was directed to be kept on 25.2.2009. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petitions are that on or about 9.1.2002 the non-petitioners namely Smt. Mohar Bai wife of the petitioner Onkar, Kumari Manisha daughter of Onkar Lal petitioner and Kumari Priyanka daughter of petitioner Onkar (in short non-petitioners) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the petitioner in the court of Family Court Kota to this effect that the marriage of the non-petitioner No.1 was solemnized with the petitioner on 28.5.1991 at village Dabri Kalan and the Gauna ceremony was performed in the year 1993. Thereafter she came to reside in the matrimonial home with the petitioner. It was further alleged that the behaviour of the petitioner was very rude and he used to pressurize the non-petitioner N.1 for getting the dowry. Thereafter she came to reside in the matrimonial home with the petitioner. It was further alleged that the behaviour of the petitioner was very rude and he used to pressurize the non-petitioner N.1 for getting the dowry. It is further submitted that from the wedlock, non-petitioner No.2 and 3 were born. It is also submitted that the petitioner used to beat her many times and one day be beaten the non-petitioner and thrown her out of the house. It is relevant to mention here that the non-petitioner No.1 has filed criminal complaint against the petitioner and his family members for the offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. It was further alleged that the non-petitioner is unable to maintain herself and children and for earning her bread and butter she wants maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the application and it was alleged that after some time of the marriage some dispute arouse between the family on account of the undue interference of the parents of the non-petitioner No.1, who used to retort that the petitioner was an employed person and that he was below standard. It was further alleged that the non-petitioner No.1 developed illicit relations with her brother-in-law (Jija) namely Parmanand son of Ramchanran, who is widower, as a result of which the non-petitioner No.1 has been residing with him for over a period of last 6 years. As a result of such illicit relations non-petitioner No.1 conceived and in order to conceal the factum of illicit relationship she got the child aborted. In such circumstances the petitioner filed a divorce petition on 21.7.2000 before the District Judge Jhalawar under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage act on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The DJ Jhalawar, issued notices to the non-petitioner No.1 and after service of notice the non-petitioner No.1 appeared before the DJ Jhalawar and submitted the reply to the divorce petition admitting therein that she had deserted the company of the petitioner on account of the relations between the two having been spoiled. She further stated that she had received a lump sum amount of Rs. 60,000 from the petitioner husband for maintenance of herself and her children and in such circumstances she has prayed that the decree of divorce be passed. She further stated that she had received a lump sum amount of Rs. 60,000 from the petitioner husband for maintenance of herself and her children and in such circumstances she has prayed that the decree of divorce be passed. In the petition it was further alleged that it is evident that the non-petitioner No.1 has conceded in clear and unambiguous terms that she was responsible for deserting the company of the petitioner and that she herself has willingly and without any pressure has accepted a sum of Rs.60,000/- by way of one time settlement towards he maintenance of herself and her daughters. The non-petitioner No.1 has filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the divorce petition for getting the expenses. The family Court recorded the statements of AW-1 Mohar Bai on behalf of the applicants whereas statements of NAW-1 Onkarlal, NAW-2 Shiv Prasad, NAW-3 Ramswaroop, NAW-4 Latoorlal and NAW-5 Gangabishan were recorded on behalf of the non-applicant-petitioner herein. The documentary evidence was also got exhibited on behalf of the petitioner. The Family court after hearing the arguments from both the sides, allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance as mentioned above to the non-petitioners vide order dated 8.8.2008 and this order has been challenged in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.1292 of 2008 as mentioned above. Earlier to it the Family Court rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 5.5.2008 and this order has been challenged in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.1036 of 2008. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Family Court Kota requesting the DJ Chittorgarh to recover half of the salary amount monthly from the petitioner pay and send the same to the Court below. This order has also been challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.168 of 2009. 3. Since all the criminal revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the non-petitioners against the various orders of the Family Court, all the revision petitions are being heard together and disposed together by this common order. 4. It would be appropriate to first deal with the S.B. Revision Petition No.1036 of 2008 which is in relation to the order dated 5.5.2008 of the Family Court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 5. 4. It would be appropriate to first deal with the S.B. Revision Petition No.1036 of 2008 which is in relation to the order dated 5.5.2008 of the Family Court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court has seriously erred in passing the order dated 5.5.2008 on the basis of surmises and conjectures due to which total failure of justice has resulted. The impugned order suffered from patent illegalities and misreading of evidence on the face of it. The trial Court has seriously erred in passing the order dated 5.5.2008 upon inference as per its own sweet will which otherwise could not have been drawn if the entire facts and circumstances and evidence on record would have been taken into consideration and appreciated properly. 6. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners opposed the criminal revision petition No.1036 of 2008 and it was stated that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rightly rejected. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was pending before the Court from the year 2002 and no new circumstances was brought to the notice of the Court for allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the non-petitioner No.1 for recording her statement again. The order passed by the trial Court is just and proper in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 7. I have heard both the parties in criminal revision petition No.1036 of 2008 challenging the order dated 5.5.2008 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 8. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the order of the Family Court dated 5.5.2008. I have heard both the parties in criminal revision petition No.1036 of 2008 challenging the order dated 5.5.2008 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 8. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the order of the Family Court dated 5.5.2008. The Family Court in the order observed as under: ^^izFke rks ;g vkns'k ftl vihy esa fn- 23-1-2007 dks fn;k x;k gS mldk eheksa vkWQ vihy is'k ugha fd;k x;k gS tks U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk dksu ls rF; mBk;s x;s ftlds ckcr~ ;g fy[kk x;k gS fd ;s vk{ksi ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; dksVk ds le{k mBk;s tk ldrs gSA f}rh; ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk tks vkns'k o funsZ'k fn;s gS mldh ikyuk iw.kZr;k bl U;k;ky; esa dh tkosxhA vHkh izdj.k yfEcr gS rFkk tks Hkh rF; U;k;ky; ds le{k yfEcr gS vkSj tks Hkh rF; U;k;ky; ds le{k yk;s tkosaxs] tks /kkjk 125 na-iz-la- ls fuLrkj.k ds fy, vko';d gksaxs mu lHkh ij xkSj fd;k tkosxk blfy, ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds rgr bl izdj.k esa vizkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ rF; U;k;ky; ds le{k viuh lk{; esa ykus ds fy, leFkZ gsA blds vfrfjä fn- 22-7-2007 dks tks nLrkost vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls Mkd ls izsf"kr fd;s gS mlesa nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; /kkjk 13 fg-fo- vf/k- ds rgr py jgs ihfV'ku dks vkWMZj'khV] izkFkZuk i= vkfn dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi;ka is'k dh xbZ gS rFkk ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- la-74@01 esa vfxze tekur ds vkns'k] /kkjk 161 na-iz-la- ds c;ku] Hkwfeghu dk izek.ki=] esfMdy fjiksVZ o fcy vkfn udys is'k djuk QgfjLr nLrkost is'k fd;s gSA blds vfrfjä 27-7-2007 dks Hkh /kkjk 6 o 10 fgUnq izfrikY; ,oa laj{k.k vf/kfu;e dks ;kfpdk dh QksVksizfr] vkWMZj'khV dh udy vkfn is'k dh xbZ gSA blesa ,slk dksbZ nLrkost ugha gS tks izkfFkZ;k ds c;ku fn0 22-5-2006 dks lk{; ysus xs ckn fy[kk x;k gks ;k vfLFkRo esa vk;k gks ftlds ckcr ftjg fd;k tkuk vko';d gksA /kkjk 311 ds izko/kku v{kj'k% bl izdj.k esa dBksjiwoZd ykxw ugha gksrsA gkykafd bl izko/kku ds rgr ;k O;ogkj izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr Hkh ;fn dksbZ u;k rF; jsdkMZ ij vk tkos ftlds ckcr~ xokg dks iqu% ftjg ds fy, cqykuk vko';d gks rks ftjg ds fy, cqyk;k tk ldrk gS ysfdu bl izdj.k esa fnukad 22-5-2006 dks tks izkfFkZ;k ds c;ku gq, gS mlds ckcr~ ,slk dksbZ u;k rF; mRiUu ugha gqvk gS tks /kkjk 125 na-iz-la- ds rgr tks izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;k gS mlds fuLrkj.k esa enn djus esa izkfFkZ;k dks iqu% ftjg cqykuk U;k;ksfpr gksA ;g /kkjk 125 ;g /kkjk 125 na-iz-la- dk izkFkZuk i= 2002 ls yfEcr gS ftlesa ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZx.k dks usxysDV dj j[kk gS vkSj izkFkhZx.k ds ikl Hkj.k iks"k.k ds lk/ku ugha gS vkSj vizkFkhZ mudk Hkj.kiks"k.k djus esa l{ke gS vkSj D;k izkFkhZx.k dks vizkFkhZ ls xqtkjkHkÙkk fnyk;k tkuk pkfg;s] rks fdruk\ bu rF;ksa dks r; djus ds fy, ,slk dksbZ u;k rF; jsdkMZ ij ugha vk;k gS ftlds vk/kkj ij n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ;k O;ogkj izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr izkfFkZ;k dks iqu% ftjg ds fy, cqyk;k tkuk vko';d gksA vr% vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fn- 1-3-2007 iks"k.kh; ugha gS vkSj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS vkns'k lquk;k x;kA** 9. I am in agreement with the order passed by the trial Court dated 5.5.2008 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 311 for recalling the non-petitioner for recording her statement again. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was pending since 2002 and no new circumstance was produced before the trial Court for recalling the non-petitioner for recording her statement again for passing orders on the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The order dated 5.5.2008 does not call for any interference in the revision petition. The court below passed the order dated 5.5.2008 after hearing both the parties and it was held by the Court below that only for passing order for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. there is no need to further record the statement of the applicant as no new circumstance was brought to the notice of the court as the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was pending since 2002. The ruling cited by the counsel for the petitioner Smt. Mamta and others vs. Civil Judge (JD) cum JM No.2 Jodhpur 2006 Western Law Cases (Raj.) UC 370 related to a civil matter under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act and against that order a civil writ petition was filed before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, is not applicable to the facts of the case. The criminal revision petition No. 1036/2008 stands rejected. 10. Now it is proper for this Court to first look into the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 1292 of 2008. 11. Mr. Nitin Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that there was unimpeachable evidence available on record to justify the dropping of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was further argued that the non-petitioner No.1 filed reply before the DJ Jhalawar that she herself has deserted the company of the petitioner and failed to perform the marital obligations and that she had received a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards permanent alimony and as such no further proceedings for maintenance were permissible in such a situation. 60,000/- towards permanent alimony and as such no further proceedings for maintenance were permissible in such a situation. The Court below has not considered this aspect and wrongly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial Court vide order dated 7.8.2006 allowed maintenance to the non-petitioners and that order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.7.2008 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1102 of 2008 directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the non-petitioner No.1 till the arrears are fully recovered and thereafter the petitioner shall pay at the rate of Rs. 1000/- as directed by the trial Court. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is working as LDC and is drawing Rs. 6000/- as monthly salary. In these circumstances, it was impossible for him to pay Rs. 5500/- towards maintenance and Rs. 3000/- towards pendente lite maintenance. Drawing attention of this court towards Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. it was argued that "no wife shall be entitled to receive maintenance or the interim maintenance from her husband if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reasons she refused to live with her husband. 12. Mr. D.S. Jhala, learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners has argued that the order passed by the Court below allowing maintenance to the non-petitioners is just and proper. No interference is called for in the revision petition filed by him. The Court below after considering the arguments and the material available on record passed the order allowing maintenance in the amount of Rs.1500/- per month to the non-petitioner and at the rate of Rs. 1250/- to the two children total Rs. 4,000/-. For recovery of due amount the court below directed to pay Rs. 1500/- till the amount is fully recovered. This order of the Court below does not call for any interference by this Court when the Division Bench of this Court has already rejected the D.B. Special Appeal challenging the award of maintenance to the non-petitioners. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in criminal revision petition No.1292 of 2008 against the order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the Family Court, Kota on the application filed by the non-petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. 14. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in criminal revision petition No.1292 of 2008 against the order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the Family Court, Kota on the application filed by the non-petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. 14. The Family Court in this matter formulated two points, which are as under: ^^1- vk;k izkfFkZ;k vizkFkhZ dh ifRu gS tks vizkFkhZ ls [kpkZ ikus dh gdnkj gS\ 2- ;fn gkW rks fdl dnj** 15. The applicant Mohar Bai in her support examined herself as AW-1. The non-applicant produced five witnesses including himself. The Court below considering the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the applicant is wedded wife of the non-applicant and she is entitled for maintenance. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Court below. The findings arrived at by the Court below cannot be said to be perverse on point No.1. In relation to point No.2 the Court below held that the applicant is a government job in courts and having agricultural land and in this manner his income was assessed to be Rs. 12,000/- per month. It was observed by the Court below that vide order dated 29.3.2006 the Court below awarded Rs. 1,000/- each to the applicants 2 and 3 from the date of application dated 9.1.2001. It was observed by the Court below that upto 9.8.2008 the applicants 2 and 3 are entitled for Rs. 1,000/- and thereafter it was observed that the applicants 2 and 3 are entitled for Rs. 1250/- each and the applicant is entitled for Rs. 1500/- per month total Rs. 4000/-. The court below also observed that the arrears of the earlier order has not been paid by the non-applicant in these circumstances it was directed that he will also pay Rs. 1500/- towards arrears which are due against the applicant. This order of the court below is just and proper and cannot be said to be perverse. The findings arrived at by the court below on point No.2 is just and proper and does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision petition filed against the order dated 8.8.2008 stands rejected. The stay application also stands rejected. 16. The findings arrived at by the court below on point No.2 is just and proper and does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision petition filed against the order dated 8.8.2008 stands rejected. The stay application also stands rejected. 16. Criminal revision petition No. 168 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.12.2008 whereby the Court below requested the DJ Chittorgarh to deduct half of the amount of salary from the petitioner and sent the same to the Court below by demand drat or bank chequer. It is submitted that since the petitioner has not complied with the earlier order of this Court and no order of stay was produced by him. Even if the Court below passed order requesting the DJ Chittorgarh to deduct half of the salary for paying maintenance to the non-petitioners that order cannot be said to be perverse. Mr. Rajvir Sharma and Mr. Nitin Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect placed reliance on Narendra Kumar Sharma vs. Madhu (2004 Western Law Cases (Raj.) UC 346). 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It may be mentioned that the petitioner filed the revision on 16.1.2009. This Court issued notice of the revision petition to the non-petitioners on 6.2.2009. The notices of the revision petition were served on the non-petitioners on 25.2.2009. The revision petition was admitted on 4.3.2009. On 30.3.2009 this court passed the following order: "List this case on 8th April, 2009. Meanwhile the petitioner is directed to file the detailed affidavit giving out the details of amount deposited by him. A copy of the affidavit be given to the counsel for the respondents. If he wants to file reply o the same, then he can file the same on before 8th April, 2099. Put up on 8th April, 2009 as prayed." 18. In response to the order dated 30.3.2009, the petitioner filed affidavit on 31.3.2009. Paras 1, 2 and 3 of the affidavit read as under: "1. That Hon'ble High Court passed an order on 4.2.2008 in SBCWP No.905/2008 whereby the applicant myself has been ordered to pay 3000/- per month to the respondent instead of Rs. 4000/- per month. In compliance of such order I am paying such amount by way of deduction from salary. It is submitted that Rs. That Hon'ble High Court passed an order on 4.2.2008 in SBCWP No.905/2008 whereby the applicant myself has been ordered to pay 3000/- per month to the respondent instead of Rs. 4000/- per month. In compliance of such order I am paying such amount by way of deduction from salary. It is submitted that Rs. 8000/- was deducted from my salary before passing the order of Hon'ble High Court and the amount was sent to District Judge, Jhalawar. It is evident from the certificate dated 19.2.2008, copy of which is enclosed. Thereafter Rs. 3000/- were deducted from my salary pertains to month January 2008 and the amount was sent to District Judge Jhalawar vide DD No. 217106. Certificate dated 23.6.2008 enclosed. Again Rs. 3000/- was deducted from salary of the month of February 2008 and the amount was sent to District Jhalawar vide DD No. 217107. Again Rs. 3000/- was deducted from the salary of the month 2008 vide DD No.217108 and again Rs. 3000/- was deducted from the salary of April 2008 and amount was sent vide DD No. 217109. Copy of the certificates referred above dated 23.6.2008 are enclosed herewith collectively. 2. That again the amount of Rs. 3000/- p.m. has been deducted from the salary of deponent and such amount Rs. 15000/- was deducted frm July to November 2008 and sent to District Judge Jhalawar vide DD No. 960 dated 13.1.2009. After that Rs. 3000/- has been deducted from the salary of December 2008 and amount has been sent vide DD No. 960964 dated 13.1.2009. The amount of Rs.3000/- has been deducted from the salary of January 2009 and amount has been sent through DD No.061061 dated 3.2.2009and again Rs. 3000/- has been deducted from the salary of February 2009 and amount has been remitted to District Judge Jhalawar vide DD No. 961538 dt. 3.3.2009. The salary of March 2009 has not been paid to the petitioner myself till today such salary will be given in the month of April and amount shall be deducted therefore so I have deposited total amount of Rs. 44000/- upto February 2009. I am complying with the order dated 4.2.2008 of Hon'ble High Court in all respect. It is well in the knowledge of the respondent but even then she is trying to get the illegal amount by way of enforcing execution application. 44000/- upto February 2009. I am complying with the order dated 4.2.2008 of Hon'ble High Court in all respect. It is well in the knowledge of the respondent but even then she is trying to get the illegal amount by way of enforcing execution application. It is made clear that the respondents have filed three execution application of the main order dated 8.8.2008, one is 71/2007, second is 338/08 and third has been filed before Hon'ble District Judge, Jhalawar i.e. 98/2007. This execution application is of the order passed on an application u/Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Third execution has also filed before Family Court Kota by the respondent." 19. The respondent Mohar Bai also filed reply to the affidavit of the petitioner by filing the affidavit on 4.4.2009. In the affidavit she stated thus: "1. That I am of the respondent No.2 in this revision petition (wife of the petitioner) and as per the affidavit filed by the petitioner he was paid only Rs. 44,000/- for the compliance of the order passed by the District Judge Jhalawar under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and he was not paid single rupees to comply the order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the Family Court Kota under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. That total amount is outstanding against the petitioner is 3,04,500/- in non-compliance the order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the Family Court Kota under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and if Hon'ble High Court ordered to adjust the amount of Rs. 44,000/- which was paid by the petitioner for the compliance of order passed by the District Judge Jhalawar then also Rs. 2,60,500/- is still outstanding against him. It is pertinent to mention that petitioner have not made the all payment under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and payment made under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is temporary in nature which was paid only for the period when the divorce petition is pending. 3. That a revision petition No. 1292/2008 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the Family Court Kota is also pending before this Hon'ble High Court. 20. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner has also filed a counter affidavit on 23.4.2009. In the affidavit it has been stated that upto month of March, 2009 Rs. 47,000/- have been deposited by the petitioner. 20. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner has also filed a counter affidavit on 23.4.2009. In the affidavit it has been stated that upto month of March, 2009 Rs. 47,000/- have been deposited by the petitioner. It has also been mentioned in the counter affidavit that the execution of both the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are running under the order of Hon'ble High Court and the respondent cannot misinterpret the order to execute the orders of both the courts separately. It has further been stated that the calculation given by the respondent No.2 in her affidavit is not correct and the true facts are that from 20.9.2000 to 19.4.2009 only an amount of Rs. 1,06,500/- are come out against the petitioner and the petitioner deposited Rs. 1,07,000/-. It may also be mentioned that on 18.1.2012 the petitioner filed an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. for early listing and final disposal stating therein that the respondent has filed a criminal case against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and he has been arrested and his bail application was rejected by the trial Court on 29.8.2011. On account of pendency criminal case he has been served a charge sheet on 3.1.2012 and placed under suspension vide order dated 3.1.2012. Copy of the suspension order has also been placed on the record of this case. It was requested that the matter should be heard finally. Thereafter further applications for early hearing of the cases were filed by the petitioner. 21. I have considered the material placed on the record including the affidavits and counter affidavit. It is clear that the petitioner has paid Rs. 47,000/- upto 10.4.2009. He has been placed under suspension vide order dated 3rd Jan. 2012. The exact position of payment made thereafter is not placed on the record of this case. In these circumstances it is ordered that the amount already paid to the non-petitioners shall not be disturbed as per ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Narendra Kumar Sharma vs. Madhu 2004 Western Law Cases (Raj.) UC 346 based on the basis of the judgment of Division Bench in Akhilesh Bhargav vs. Ranjana Bhargava and Anr. WLC (Raj.) UC 2002 page 23. The Family court is free to proceed as per law. WLC (Raj.) UC 2002 page 23. The Family court is free to proceed as per law. 22. In view of the above discussion, the criminal revision petitions Nos. 1036/2008 and 1292/2008 stand rejected and the revision petition No. 168/2009 stands disposed with the above directions. The stay applications also stand disposed of.