Uttarakhand High Court
Ravindra Singh Shahi vs Pushpa Devi & Another on 5 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 90 of 2023
05th March, 2025
Ravindra Singh Shahi .......Applicant
Versus
Pushpa Devi & another .........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Mohd. Umar and Ms. Mamta Shahi, Advocates for the applicant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuly, B.H. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed on behalf of the applicant challenging the order dated
07.09.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh
in Criminal Revision No.18 of 2022 and order dated 21.03.2022 &
12.10.2018, passed by learned Ist Judicial Magistrate, Didihat, District
Pithoragarh in Criminal Case No.10 of 2018 and to decide the said
criminal case.
2. Facts in a nutshell are that on 04.01.2015 applicant and
respondent no.1 got married and after some lapse of time acrimony
grew between them, on one pretext or the other. The applicant is
serving in Indian Army and one day when he was out for some work,
respondent no.1 left her home with her daughter. On 20.01.2017 when
the applicant returned he found all his belongings missing and her
wife and daughter were nowhere to be found and when he called her,
she hurled abuses at him. Apropos the matter, applicant tried to
register an F.I.R., but Police denied the same, thereafter on 21.01.2017
applicant sent his complaint to S.S.P. Almora, but to no avail, action
was not taken on his complaint.
3. After leaving home of the applicant, respondent no.1 filed
a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the applicant in the year
2018 and filed a Misc. Criminal Case No.10 of 2018, under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, wherein an ex-parte judgment
was passed on 12.10.2018. Thereafter applicant filed a Criminal
Revision No.29 of 2018 against the said judgment, which was allowed
vide order dated 03.01.2019 and the revisional court while allowing
the revision directed the applicant to pay ₹10,000/- as damages/cost to
respondent no.1 as under:-
"(i) Mr. Ravindra Singh Shahi will pay an amount of
₹10,000/- to Smt. Pushpa Devi, within one month from the date
of passing of the order; and
(ii) If the said amount of ₹10,000/- is not paid by Ravindra
Singh Shahi to Smt. Pushpa Devi within one month, then order
dated 12.10.2018, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case
No.10 of 2018 shall stand."
4. Revisionist failed to comply with the condition. He
deposited cost on 05.02.2019 instead of depositing it within one
month i.e., by 02.02.2019. The respondent wife moved an application
30 Ka on 06.02.2019 for compliance of the ex-parte order.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court
dismissed the said application vide order dated 18.02.2019. Thereafter
respondent no.1 has challenged the order dated 18.02.2019 by filing a
revision and the revisional court allowed the same vide its order dated
30.10.2021 and directed the trial court to decide the application of
30ka afresh. In compliance of order dated 30.10.2021 trial court
decide the application vide its order dated 21.03.2022. Aggrieved by
the said order applicant filed a Revision No.18 of 2022 before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh and the said revision
was rejected vide its order dated 07.09.2022. Aggrieved by the said
orders the applicant is before this Court.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel
appearing for the applicant has argued that the applicant served in the
Indian Army for long and retired on 01.04.2018 and after his
retirement is facing mental illness, due to depression, and for the said
reason was not able to appear before the trial court and the trial court
passed an ex-parte order dated 12.10.2018.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and looking to the fact that the respondent no.1 - Smt. Pushpa Devi is
the legally wedded wife of the applicant, it is a primary responsibility
of the applicant to maintain his wife and daughter. I find no
irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the trial court.
8. Having perused the impugned judgments and orders, I am
of the opinion that there is no ground for interference in this matter.
There is no illegality in the judgment and order impugned. The
learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court have not
committed any error of law and facts in holding that the ex-parte order
dated 12.10.2018 stood maintained in the event of non compliance of
the conditional order dated 03.01.2019. Thus no interference is
required.
9. The criminal misc. application fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
05.03.2025
SK
