Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 514 (UTT)

Ankit Vasudev v. Ratika Sharma

2020-12-01

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - There is 195 days' delay in filing the present criminal revision. Reasons furnished in the application are found satisfactory. Consequently, delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned. 2. Admit. 3. This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist to allow the present criminal revision with cost, impugned order under revision dated 26.08.2019 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 114 of 2019, "Ratika Sharma vs. Ankit Vasudev" be set-aside, application under Second Proviso to under Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. filed by respondent nos. 1 & 2 seeking interim maintenance, be dismissed or in alternate be directed to be decided afresh after giving opportunity of hearing and filing objection to revisionist. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the revisionist limits his prayer only to the extent that the matter may kindly be remanded back to the lower Court with a direction that the matter may be decided afresh after giving fresh opportunity of hearing to the revisionist as well as to the respondent nos. 2 & 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist also prays that the Court below may also give the opportunity to the revisionist for filing the objections. 5. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 as well as the learned State Counsel does not seriously object to the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the present criminal revision is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) The matter is remanded back to the learned Court below to decide the aforesaid case within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law. (ii) Fresh opportunity of being heard shall be given by the lower Court to the revisionist as well as to respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein. (iii) The Court below may also give the opportunity to the revisionist for filing objections. (iii) Till the final disposal of the aforesaid case by the Court below, the revisionist shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent nos. 1 & 2 from the date of filing of application. 1 & 2 herein. (iii) The Court below may also give the opportunity to the revisionist for filing objections. (iii) Till the final disposal of the aforesaid case by the Court below, the revisionist shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent nos. 1 & 2 from the date of filing of application. (iv) The learned Court below shall be at liberty to either reduce or enhance the amount of maintenance after hearing learned counsel for both the parties. 7. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.