Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 100 (UTT)

KHOOB SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2010-03-12

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceeding of criminal case No. 74 of 2003, Smt. Kailasho Vs. Khoob Singh filed Under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Police Station Pathri District Haridwar, pending in the court of Judge Family Judge Haridwar. Also, order dated 9.11.2004 passed by Judge Family Judge Haridwar in misc. case no. 109 of 2004, arising out aforesaid case No. 74 of 2003 has also been sought to be quashed. 3. Brief fact of the case are that the respondent No. 3 Kailasho filed an application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C against the petitioner for maintenance pleading that she is wife of the petitioner, who has allegedly neglected to maintain her. She also pleaded that the petitioner is in Government service as Chowkidar and she has no means to maintain herself. It appears that the trial Court (Family Court, Haridwar) in the proceedings Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf on respondent No. 3 Kailasho, while allowing the application directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500 per month. Since said order was ex parte order as such the application Under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner for setting aside of the order, dated 18.2.2004, where by the direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500 was passed. By the impugned order dated 19.11.2004 the Family Court Haridwar allowed the application Under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner but on the condition of payment of Rs. 10,000 to Smt. Kailasho. 4. Learned Counsel in the petitioner contended that petitioner is admittedly a Chowkidar in Government school, and condition to pay Rs. 10,000 at costs for setting aside exparte order infact practically dismisses the application as the petitioner can not fulfill such condition. 5. Having considered submission of Learned Court for the parties and after going through the papers on record, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order dated 9.11.2004 deserves to be modified making it practical for the petitioner to make the payment of the cost. Accordingly the petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed partly. 5. Having considered submission of Learned Court for the parties and after going through the papers on record, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order dated 9.11.2004 deserves to be modified making it practical for the petitioner to make the payment of the cost. Accordingly the petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed partly. The condition impugned by the trial Court vide impugned orders dated 9.11.2004 is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 10,000 the petitions shall pay Rs. 1,000 as costs within a period of one month from today to respondent No. 3 or deposit before the trial court in her favour on which the application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall stand restored. With this modification this petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. interim stand disposed of dated 17.12.2004 automatically stands vacated.