Uttarakhand High Court
February vs Sangeeta Kandwal & Another on 10 February, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:684
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1165 of 2024
10 February, 2025
Sunder Lal Kandwal
--applicant
Versus
Sangeeta Kandwal & another
--respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Yash Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vikas
Bahuguna, learned counsel for the applicant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This criminal misc. application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant
assailing the order dated 27.09.2023, passed by Judicial
Magistrate, Joshimath in Misc. Criminal Case No.73 of
2022, Sunder Lal Kandwal vs. Sangeeta Kandwal &
another, whereby the application filed by the application
under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The applicant
has further put to challenge the order dated 21.03.2024,
passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar) in
Criminal Revision No.28 of 2023, Sunder Lal Kandwal vs.
Sangeeta Kandwal, whereby the revision preferred by the
applicant against the order dated 27.09.2023 has been
dismissed.
2. The facts in nutshell are that on 26.07.2018, a
case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance had
been instituted by the respondent no.1, wherein the
judgment was passed on 29.08.2019, whereby the
applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per
2025:UHC:684
month as maintenance to the respondent no.1 and her
minor son. There-against, Criminal Revision No.24 of
2019 was instituted before the Sessions Judge, however,
the said revision, due to the compromise reached
between the parties, before the National Lok Adalat, was
decided on 11.09.2021, whereby it was directed that the
applicant shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as
maintenance allowance to the respondents instead of
Rs.2,000/- as directed earlier.
3. The application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was
filed by the applicant, wherein he stated that due to
being 40% disabled, he is unable to pay the amount of
maintenance since he is dependent on the disability
pension of Rs.1,500/- received from Social Welfare
Department. The applicant also prayed that he is still
under treatment in the Government Hospital,
Herbertpur. In that application, he also mentioned
accident occurred on 04.10.2017 in which he was
injured.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, learned
counsel appearing for the applicant has argued that the
applicant being physically disabled and having no source
of earning and further dependent upon the meager
amount of pension obtained from Social Welfare
Department of the State, is unable to pay the amount of
maintenance, which was modified before the National Lok
Adalat.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case and looking to the fact that the respondent
no.1-Smt. Sangeeta Kandwal is the legally wedded wife of
the applicant, it is a primary responsibility of the
applicant to maintain his wife and his minor son. I find
no irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the
2025:UHC:684
trial court. There are concurrent findings of fact against
the applicant.
6. Having perused the impugned judgments and
orders, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for
interference in this matter. The criminal misc. application
fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
10.02.2025
AK
