Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hamirpur vs Reena Thakur Wife Of on 1 November, 2022
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
.
SHIMLA
ON THE 1st DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC
No.648 of 2021
Between:
RAKESH KUMAR SON OF
LATE SHRI KISHAN CHAND,
VPO
BARSAR,
SAMTANA,
AGE 49 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
r TEHSIL
DISTRICT
HAMIRPUR, H.P.
....PETITIONER.
(M/S R.L. CHAUDHARY AND H.R. SIDHU, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. REENA THAKUR WIFE OF
SHRI RAKESH KUMAR
DAUGHTER OF SHRI SATPAL
KATOCH, RESIDENT OF
SHARMA BUILDING, VILLAGE
DUDHI, P.O. BHARARI,
TEHSIL & DISTRICT SHIMLA,
H.P.
2. MASTER ABHINAV
THAKUR SON OF SHRI
RAKESH KUMAR, THROUGH
MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1
REENA THAKUR WIFE OF
SHRI RAKESH KUMAR
DAUGHTER OF SHRI SATPAL
KATOCH, RESIDENT OF
SHARMA BUILDING, VILLAGE
DUDHLI, P.O.BHARARI,
TEHSIL & DISTRICT SHIMLA,
H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2022 20:33:33 :::CIS
2
....RESPONDENTS.
.
(MR. DIWAKAR DEV SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting?1
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
By way of this petition, filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Code, the petitioner has prayed for the following
relief:
" It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition
may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment
dated 19.06.2021 passed by learned Sessins Judge,
Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Revision No.14S/10 of 2017
(Annexure P2), whereby the revision petition filed by the
respondents has been allowed and the order dated
13.06.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Court No.4, Shimla, H.P. in Case No.164 of 2010,
has been modified and the amount of maintenance of
Rs.3,000/ as awarded by the learned Trial Court in
favour of respondent No.2 has been enhanced to
Rs.7,000/ per month, may kindly be quashed and set
aside party, in the interest of law and justice."
2. When the case was listed 12,10.2022, the following
order was passed:
"The parties were heard at length. The Court stands
informed that till date an amount of Rs.1,75,000/ has been
paid by the petitioner to respondent No.2/ son, who
.
otherwise is stated to have attained majority on 21.08.2020.
In this view of the matter, the Court has impressed
upon the parties to arrive at some reasonable lumpsum
amount which can be paid by the petitioner to the respondent
No.2/son, so that the issue can be put to a quietus.
At this stage, Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to settle
the issue by paying a total lumpsum amount of
Rs.1,00,000/ to his son. Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the petitioner should at least
pay Rs.1,50,000/ to the son.
This Court is of the view that in case the petitioner is
really willing to have the matter put to a quietus , then he
should at least pay an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ to the son.
The petitioner has agreed to the said suggestion. Now, let
the matter be listed on 01.11.2022, to enable the petitioner
to bring a Demand Draft of Rs.1,20,000/, payable in
favour of the son."
3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is willing to put a quietus to the issues between the
parties and in lieu thereof, he is willing to pay an amount of
Rs.1,20,000/ to the son of the parties, i.e. respondent No.2 and to
show his bonafide, a Demand Draft stands duly prepared by the
petitioner for the said amount.
4. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that
the proceedings were initiated against him under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure by the respondents herein and in terms
.
of order dated 13.06.2017, passed by the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.IV, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. the
petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/ per month to
the son. This order was assailed by the respondents herein by way of
a Revision Petition before the Court of learned Sessions Judge,
Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. and in terms of order dated
19.06.2021, learned Revisional Court allowed the said Revision
Petition and enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.7,000/
per month.
5. It is not in dispute that the son of the parties, i.e.
respondent No.2 before this Court has since attained the age of
majority in the month of August, 2020. A perusal of the order which
is under challenge before this Court demonstrates that this
extremely important aspect of the matter was ignored by the learned
Revisional Court while passing the impugned order.
6. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that
now the father has tendered a Bank Draft for an amount of
Rs.1,20,000/ in favour of his son who admittedly has attained the
age of majority, this Court is of the considered view that it will be in
the interest of justice in case the present petition is disposed of with
the direction that now nothing is due from the father to the son and
the orders under challenge stand satisfied, because they were having
force only till the time the son had not attained the age of majority.
.
Ordered accordingly.
7. The petition is disposed of by accepting the amount of
Rs.1,20,000/ which has been tendered by the petitioner by way of
Demand Draft in favour of respondent No.2 as full and final
settlement amount intra them, which is taken to be an amount
which fully satisfies the orders which were passed by the learned
Court below in the petition preferred under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 stands handed over a
Bank draft in the Court itself.
8. Pending miscellaneous, applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
November 01, 2022
(Rishi)
