JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : The revisionist proposes to challenge ex parte judgment and order dated 26.11.2019, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.155 of 2019, Smt. Preeti and another vs. Ravindra Kumar, by the Judge, Family Court, Nainital (“the case”), by which, an application filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 seeking maintenance has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay total Rs.3,000/- per month (Rs.2,000/- to the respondent no.2, his wife and Rs.1,000 to the respondent no.3, his son). 2. The revision is delayed. The delay has yet not been condoned. 3. Today, a compounding Application has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the delay may be condoned and the revision may be decided on the basis of the statements of the parties. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Having considered, the delay in filing the revision is condoned. The Delay Condonation Application (IA) No.1 of 2023 is allowed. 7. The revisionist and the respondent no.2 have filed a joint compounding application supported by the affidavits. 8. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that both the parties are staying together for the past one year. The revisionist and the respondent no.2 are present before the Court, as identified by their respective counsel. They have accepted that they have amicably settled the dispute and they have been staying together. 9. Having considered the nature of the offence and the other attending factors, this Court is of the view that since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and they are staying together the criminal revision may be decided accordingly. 10. Since parties have settled the dispute amicably, nothing survives in this revision. It stands disposed of accordingly. 11. Compounding application also stands disposed of accordingly.