Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 400 (UTT)

Sabnam v. Imran Ahmad

2020-10-12

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N. S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.01.2010 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Misc. Criminal Case No.55 of 2008, "Smt. Sabnam & others" vs. Sri Imran Ahmad", whereby the learned court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and rejected the claim of the revisionist no. 1 in respect of claiming maintenance from the respondent. 2. On 02.08.2017, the Court had passed the following order:- "There is no representation for the parties. Today, this revision is listed under Chapter 12 Rule 4. Since no steps have been taken by the revisionist so far, the criminal revision is dismissed." 3. Seeking recall of the aforesaid order, a restoration application has been filed with a delay of 718 days. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the present revisionist has no information about the dismissal of the present case and when respondent has stopped the payments of agreed maintenance to the revisionist from the month of July, 2018, after waiting for about 5-6 months she was informed by the respondent about the dismissal of the present revision. Thereafter, the revisionist tried to contact her counsel but her counsel did not responded properly. Hence the revisionist engaged the present counsel in the month of May, 2019. He further submits that the delay in filing the restoration application is not willful or intentional. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent does not seriously oppose the delay condonation application. 6. I have perused the delay condonation application and the averments made therein. The inordinate delay has been explained properly. Consequently, delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. 7. Shri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the legal implication of the effect of the order dated 02.08.2017, dismissing the criminal revision in default, would be that as far as the adjudication of the revision on its own merit is concerned, that has come to an end with the dismissal of the revision in default. 7. Shri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the legal implication of the effect of the order dated 02.08.2017, dismissing the criminal revision in default, would be that as far as the adjudication of the revision on its own merit is concerned, that has come to an end with the dismissal of the revision in default. He further submits that under the criminal law, there is no concept of restoration or recall of an order having bearing on merits of matter, the application itself, seeking restoration of the order dated 02.08.2017 would not be sustainable under law due to bar of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 316 of 2013 dated 17.09.2019. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that the restoration application as preferred by the revisionist to recall the order dated 02.08.2017, dismissing the criminal revision in default is not sustainable and is not legally maintainable before the Court. Consequently, the application seeking restoration of the order dated 02.08.2017 is hereby dismissed without prejudicing the rights of the revisionists, if they are so advised, to seek their appropriate remedy before an appropriate legal Forum as available to them as per law.