Smt. Arti Kashyap vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 2810 UK

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Criminal Revision No. 506 of 2022
                          With
       Delay Condonation Application IA No.1 of 2022

Smt. Arti Kashyap                               ...Revisionist

                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another                ...Respondents


Present:-
            Mr. Shashank Upadhyaya, Advocate           for   the
            revisionist.
            Mr. S.S. Adhikari, D.A.G. for the State.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The revisionist proposes to challenge the order

dated 27.05.2022 passed in Criminal Case No. 357 of 2021,

Smt. Arti Kashyap Vs. Jai Kishan Kashyap, by the court of

Family Judge, Haldwani ("the case"). By it, an application

under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

("the Code") filed by the revisionist has been dismissed based

on a settlement arrived at between the parties.

2. This revision is delayed. A Delay Condonation

Application has been filed. There is 7 days delay in filing the

revision.

3. Having considered, this Court is of the view that

delay in filing the revision may be condoned.

4. Delay condonation application IA No.1 of 2022 is

allowed.

5. Delay condoned.

6. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist on

admission.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit

that an application under Section 125 of the Code, filed by

the revisionist has been dismissed based on a joint

application of the revisionist and the respondent no.2, who

happens to be the husband of the revisionist. It is argued

that thereafter, the respondent no.2 has started giving notice

to the revisionist and the respondent no.2 has been saying

now that he has befooled the revisionist, so that she could

take the case under Section 125 of the Code back from the

court.

8. A compromise application, which has been filed in

the case has been enclosed as Annexure-2. According to it,

parties had amicably settled the dispute and decided to stay

together. Based on it, the court accepted the compromise,

filed between the parties and dismissed the application

under Section 125 of the Code accordingly.

9. There is nothing wrong in the impugned

judgment. It has been passed in accordance with law. Now if

after the impugned order, any other cause of action accrues

to the revisionist, she may seek such remedy as is

permissible under law. But based on the event post the

impugned order, the impugned order cannot be interfered.

10. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision and it

deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

11. The revision is dismissed in liminie.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.09.2022 Ravi Bisht