Pradip Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Uttarakhand And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 888 UK

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
               Criminal Revision No.325 of 2020


Pradip Kumar Yadav                                      ..... Revisionist

                                Versus

The State of Uttarakhand and another ... Respondents


Mr. Kurban Ali, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Ms. Sonika Khulbe, learned B.H. for the State
Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

The revision is delayed one, supported by an affidavit. Sufficient ground has been shown for delay in filing the revision. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned.

2. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist u/s 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (VIII), Dehradun in Appeal No.84 of 2018, Pradip Kumar Yadav Vs. State.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that an application was moved by respondent Shivangi Yadav against the revisionist under Sections 18,19, 20 and 22

of the D.V. Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in which the concerned Court allowed the application filed under Section 23 D.V. Act and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.7,000/- per month as an interim maintenance. Against it, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. On 18.09.2019, when the matter was listed for hearing none was present before the Appellate Court. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2019.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist will put his appearance before the Appellate Court in future.

6. From the perusal of the above order, it is clear that on that day both the parties were not present before the Appellate Court.

7. Since, the impugned order was not passed on merit, accordingly, it is liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 31.03.2021.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 15.03.2021 Sukhbant