Het Singh Bisht vs Smt. Neetu Bisht And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 496 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Het Singh Bisht vs Smt. Neetu Bisht And Another on 22 March, 2024

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


     Compromise Application (IA) No.10995 of 2024
                         In
           Criminal Revision No.5 of 2016

Het Singh Bisht                                  ...........Revisionist

                                  Vs.

Smt. Neetu Bisht and another                ......... Respondents

Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Advocate is present for the revisionist.
Mr. R. Rahman, Advocate for the respondents.

                                 With
 Delay Condonation Application (CRMA) No.856 of 2016
                          In
             Criminal Revision No.169 of 2016

Smt. Neetu Bisht and another                 ...........Revisionists

                                  Vs.

Het Singh Bisht                                ......... Respondent

Mr. R. Rahman, Advocate is present for the revisionists.
Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Advocate for the respondent.


                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The reasons given in the delay condonation

application are sufficient to condone the delay. The delay

in filing the Criminal Revision No.169 of 2016 is

condoned. Delay Condonation Application (CRMA)

No.856 of 2016 is allowed.

2. Since common question of law involved in

both these revisions, they are being heard together and

are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The challenge in these revisions are made

to judgment and order dated 20.11.2015, passed in

Criminal Case No.133 of 2013, Smt. Neetu Bisht and

another vs. Het Singh Bisht, by the court of Family

Judge, Nainital. By it, the revisionist Het Singh Bisht

was directed to pay total `15,000/- to the respondents (i)

Smt. Neetu Bisht and (ii) Ayush as maintenance.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the parties gives a

statement that the parties have settled the dispute

amicably. Now, they both are staying together. A joint

compounding application bearing Compromise

Application (IA) No.10995 of 2024 has also been filed

supported by the affidavits.

6. The revisionist, Het Singh Bisht as well as

respondent no.1 Smt. Neetu Bisht and respondent no.2

Ayush (minor), all are present in person. The revisionist

and the respondent no.1 would submit that they are

staying together now.

7. Since parties have settled the dispute

amicably, nothing survives in these revisions. The

revisions stand disposed of accordingly.

8. Pending applications also stand disposed

of.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 22.03.2024 Sanjay