Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Rakshita Kandpal And Another ... vs Dr. Hemant Kandpal And Another on 14 May, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2018
Smt. Rakshita Kandpal and Another ...Revisionists
Versus
Dr. Hemant Kandpal and Another ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Apoorv
Chauhan, Advocate for the revisionists.
Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the
respondents.
With
Criminal Revision No. 575 of 2019
Hemant Kandpal ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. M.A. Khan,, A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief
Holder for the State.
Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Apoorv
Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since one and the same judgment and order has
been challenged in both these revisions, they are heard
together and are being decided by this common order.
2. The parties shall be referred with reference to
their position in CRLR No.10 of 2018.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
4. The challenge in this revision is made to the
judgment and order dated 11.12.2017, passed in Misc.
Criminal Case No.254 of 2012, Smt. Rakshita Kandpal and
Another Vs. Dr. Hemant Kandpal, by the court of
FamilyJudge, Nainital ("the case"). By it, an application filed
by the revisionist no.1-Rakshita Kandpal, seeking
maintenance for herself and her son, revisionist no.2-Master
Laksh @ Lavlesh, has been allowed and the respondent has
been directed to pay total Rs. 11,000/- (Rs.9,000/- to the
revisionist no.1-Rakshita Kandpal and Rs. 2,000/- to the
revisionist no.2, Master Laksh @ Lavlesh), as maintenance.
5. In CRLR No.10 of 2018, the revisionists have
sought enhancement of the amount of maintenance awarded
in the case.
6. In CRLR No.575 of 2019, the respondent has
challenged the impugned order granting maintenance to the
revisionists.
7. The respondent- Dr. Hemant Kandpal has died, as
told by Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate, who earlier
appeared for the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal.
8. Since CRLR No.575 of 2019 is an admitted
revision, it is being decided, as an admitted revision has to
be decided irrespective of the presence or absence of the
parties. In the case of Pranab Kumar Mitra Vs. State of West
Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 144. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter
alia, held that, "Whether it was an accused person or it
was a complainant who has moved the High Court in its
revisional jurisdiction, if the High Court has issued a rule
that rule has to be heard and determined in accordance
with law, whether or not the petitioner in the High Court
is alive or dead, or whether he is represented in the
Court by a legal practitioner."
9. The case is based on an application under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"),
filed by the revisionist no.1-Rakshita Kandpal. According to
it, revisionist no.1-Rakshita Kandpal and the respondent-
Dr. Hemant Kandpal were married on 27.11.2009, but after
marriage, the revisionist no.1-Rakshita Kandpal was
harassed and tortured for and in connection with the
demand of dowry. She was tortured. She was treated badly.
She gave birth to a child from the wedlock, but, finally,
according to the revisionist no.1-Rakshita Kandpal, she was
expelled from her matrimonial house on 23.01.2012.
Thereafter, the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal did not take
care of her. She is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the
respondent- Dr. Hemant Kandpal is an Assistant Professor in
a university and gets Rs. 42,000/- per month as salary.
10. The respondent- Dr. Hemant Kandpal filed
objections to the application filed under Section 125 of the
Code. According to him, it is the revisionist no.1-Rakshita
Kandpal, who had made his life miserable. She would take
quarrels and would try to lower his reputation in the society.
Therefore, she had filed multiple litigations against him.
According to the respondent- Dr. Hemant Kandpal, the
revisionist no.1-Rakshita Kandpal, on her own, without any
reason, left the company of the respondent- Dr. Hemant
Kandpal. She is a highly educated woman.
11. In evidence, on behalf of the revisionist no.1-
Rakshita Kandpal, she herself was examined and one
witness, M.C. Pathak was also examined as PW2. The
respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal also examined himself as a
witness. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order
passed in the case, the maintenance was granted.
13. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
revisionists would submit that now the husband of the
revisionist no.1, Smt. Rakshita Kandpal, has died, therefore,
the order may not be disturbed.
13. The Court requested Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat,
Advocate to assist the Court in the matter. He would submit
that since the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal is no more,
the revisions are academic only.
14. As stated, a revision has to be decided on merits.
15. In her evidence, the revisionist no.1-Rakshita
Kandpal has reiterated the version of her application under
Section 125 of the Code and has stated that after marriage,
she was harassed and tortured for multiple reasons, and
once, she was expelled from her matrimonial house. Parties
have other litigations also. It is also revealed in the evidence
that, in fact, the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal was in jail
for some time. After discussing all these aspects, the court
below has observed that the revisionist no.1-Rakshita
Kandpal has sufficient reasons for staying separate from her
husband Dr. Hemant Kandpal.
16. On the means to survive, the court below has
categorically recorded that the revisionist no.1-Rakshita
Kandpal is not able to maintain herself, though she is highly
qualified. The respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal could not
also adduce any evidence to establish that the revisionist
no.1-Rakshita Kandpal has means to survive. Admittedly,
the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal is working in the
university. After accessing the income of the parties, their
social status and other factors, the court below has passed
the order granting maintenance.
17. Having considered, this Court does not find any
reason to make any interference in the impugned judgment
and order. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere.
Accordingly, the revisions deserve to be dismissed.
18. The revisions are dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
14.05.2024
Ravi Bisht
