- (1.) Heard Sri. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist requested for passing over of the case so that he may enquire whether revisionist is alive or not. This ground is not satisfactory for adjourning the case and passing over it, because we have to go through the merit of the impugned order and nothing else.
(3.) In the present case, order of maintenance against revisionist was passed on application of his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said order was neither quashed nor stayed till filing of the revision. Since original order of maintenance exists in effective way, therefore, such revision cannot be allowed only for staying the execution proceeding of the order of maintenance that has become final. After finality of the order of maintenance, the impugned order of issuing process for realization of its amount is a routine and interlocutory order ,which suffers from no error. Apparently, it is interlocutory order, against which, revision is not maintainable. Therefore, revision is dismissed.;