JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. List has been revised. None present for the revisionist. 2. Heard learned AGA and perused the pleadings of revision. 3. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 24.06.2015 by which the recovery warrant has been issued in the proceedings under section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. 4. In the grounds of revision, it has been mentioned that on 31.01.2015, the revisionist has filed an application for providing time to deposit the amount as the revisionist being the poor Brahmin and doing pooja path could not deposit the said amount and he wants some more time to deposit the amount. 5. Learned AGA has defended the impugned order. 6. During the pendency of this revision, by order dated 28.09.2015, one month's time was granted to deposit the arrears of Rs.10,500/- but the revisionist has not complied with the said order. 7. By order dated 24.06.2015, learned court below has issued recovery warrant for outstanding of maintenance. Certainly, if the revisionist do not deposit the amount of maintenance, the court below is competent to issue recovery warrant in accordance with the provisions of law. 8. I do not find any error of law or perversity in the order dated 24.06.2015. The revision is dismissed.