Uttarakhand High Court
Pradeep Kumar Yadav vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 14 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.331 of 2020
Pradeep Kumar Yadav ...........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Another .........Respondents
Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mrs. Shivangi Gangwar, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakahnd.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for respondent no.2.
With
Criminal Revision No.143 of 2020
Shivangi Yadav ...........Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Another .........Respondents
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mrs. Shivangi Gangwar, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakahnd.
Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.
The present Criminal Revision has been filed
with the delay of 285 days. Despite the opportunity
granted to the respondents, objection has not been filed
yet. The delay of 285 days has been explained
sufficiently. Consequently, the delay is condoned and
the Delay Condonation Application is allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that
both the criminal revisions be disposed of at admission
stage.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merit.
4. The Criminal Revision No.331 of 2020 has
been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated
20.12.2020, wherefore, the Criminal Revision No.143 of
2020 has been filed for enhancement of the maintenance.
5. The factual matrix of the present case is that
first husband (Anup Kumar Srivastava) of Shivangi Yadav
met an accident and thereafter he passed away left
behind his son Kaustubhkant. Having considered the
fact that Pradeep Kumar Yadav is widower and Shivangi
Yadav is widow. They decided to get marry as per Hindu
Rites and Rituals. The revisionist Pradeep Kumar Yadav
has the liability of son of Smt. Shivangi Yadav, from the
first husband, has now completed the degree of MBBS
but he refused to take the responsibility of her son
Kaushtubhkant.
6. Some matrimonial discord between the
revisionist and respondent no.2 arose and they are living
separately. The respondent no.2 filed an application
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The learned Additional
Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide its judgment and
order dated 20.12.2019 allowed the application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in ex parte manner and directed
the revisionist to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- per
month as maintenance to the respondent no.2.
7. Learned counsel for the parties would submit
that there are chances of amicable settlement between
the revisionist and respondent no.2. Having considered
the fact that the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
has been decided ex parte by the impugned judgment
and order dated 20.12.2019 as well as there are chances
of amicable settlement between the parties. The
impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2020 is
hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the
learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun to
make an effort for amicable settlement between the
parties. In case, there is no chance of reconciliation
between the parties then the court below shall proceed to
decide the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in
accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, both the criminal revisions are
disposed of with a direction that the Trial Court shall
make an endeavour to decide the case expeditiously. It is
further directed that the revisionist Pradeep Kumar
Yadav shall pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to his wife
within one month from today.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.)
14.01.2021
Ravi
