Uttarakhand High Court
9 October vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 9 October, 2025
2025:UHC:9051-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.547 of 2025
09 October, 2025
Beena Rawat and Another --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Deepak Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr.
Rakesh Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT:
(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay J.)
The petitioners have filed this writ petition with
the following relief(s):-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of the Mandamus commanding and directing
the respondent no.2 and 3 to provide adequate
security to the petitioners as provided under
the law by protecting their rights of life and
personal liberty with dignity as guaranteed to
them by the Constitution of India under Article
21, being a threat perception of life and liberty
as against the respondent no.4, 5, 6 and 7.
ii. Issue any other or further writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iii. To award the cost of the petition in favour
of the petitioners."
2. The parties were directed to appear before the
Mediation Centre on 19.09.2025 and report of the
2025:UHC:9051-DB
Mediator reveals that the parties are not in a position to
amicably settle their dispute.
3. The said report was placed before the Court on
24.09.2025 and the parties were directed to file their
affidavits regarding assets and liabilities and the source
of earning. Both the parties were also directed to be
present before the Court.
4. Today, petitioner no.1-Beena Rawat (wife) and
respondent no.5 Anand Singh (husband of petitioner
no.1) are present before the Court.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 submits
that the affidavit, as required by the Hon'ble Court, has
been filed and the petitioner has made an unjustified
demand of ₹25 lakh as permanent alimony, which is
beyond the financial capacity of respondent no.5 and
further he is engaged at a Restaurant/ Dhaba in the
State of Punjab and he earns only a sum of ₹8,000 to
₹9,000 per month. Respondent no.5 has ancestral land
and the approximate market value of the said land may
be around ₹5 lakh.
6. Contention of the petitioner regarding threats
from respondent no.4, 5, 6 and 7 to the life and limb of
the petitioner is misconceived as the petitioner is residing
at Nainital whereas respondent nos.4, 6 and 7 are
residing at Almora and respondent no.5 is on job in the
2025:UHC:9051-DB
State of Punjab. Thus, there is no threat perception to
the petitioner from the respondents.
7. This Court interacted with respondent no.5 and
owing to the fact that petitioner is having a minor child of
ten years, respondent no.5 has agreed to pay a sum of
₹3,000/- per month to petitioner no.1 (wife). The
accounts details have been provided by counsel for the
petitioner no.1 and the same is taken on record.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents
undertakes that respondent no.5 shall deposit a sum of
₹3,000/- per month in the account of respondent no.1.
9. With the above observations, the present writ
petition stands disposed of.
10. There shall be no order as costs.
(G. NARENDAR, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 09.10.2025
SS
