Poonam Bounthiyal vs Shri Shakti Shail Lakheda
2022 Latest Caselaw 3624 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

     Criminal Misc. Application No. 2029 of 2022

Poonam Bounthiyal                                  ........... Petitioner

                                  Vs.

Shri Shakti Shail Lakheda                          ........ Respondent



Present :   Mr. Tribhuwan Chandra Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.


                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner

seeks expeditious disposal of Misc. Criminal Case No.93

of 2022, Smt. Poonam Bounthiyal vs. Shakti Shail

Lakheda, pending in the court of Family Judge, Kotdwar,

District Pauri Garhwal (for short, "the case").

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The Court wanted to know from the learned

counsel for the petitioner that, as to why this case should

be given special priority and why instructions should be

issued for expeditious disposal of this case alone?

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that earlier also the petitioner had filed an

application seeking maintenance, in which, the parties

entered into a settlement, but the private respondent did

not honour the settlement.

5. The case was filed on 30.07.2022. On that

date, notices were issued. Service was found sufficient on

the next date that was 06.09.2022 and 11.10.2022 was

fixed for mediation. On that date, the Mediator gave a

report that parties seek more time for settlement. That's

why the case was adjourned and the next date was fixed

for 04.11.2022.

6. The Court wanted to know, as to what

happened on 04.11.2022? It is told that on the request of

the respondent, time was granted.

7. Every maintenance case should get priority in

disposal. Each court has its Court and Court

Management, based on the number of cases pending. In

the instant case, the order-sheet which is filed for dated

30.07.2022, 06.09.2022, 11.10.2022 reveals that, in fact,

in all three dates, business was done. No date was wasted

in hearing.

8. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason

to pass any direction, as sought. The petition deserves to

be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

9. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 15.11.2022 Sanjay