Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 339 (UTT)

Rakshita Kandpal v. Hemant Kandpal

2024-05-14

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. Since one and the same judgment and order has been challenged in both these revisions, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. The parties shall be referred with reference to their position in CRLR No. 10 of 2018. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 11.12.2017, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 254 of 2012, Smt. Rakshita Kandpal and Another Vs. Dr. Hemant Kandpal, by the court of FamilyJudge, Nainital (“the case”). By it, an application filed by the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal, seeking maintenance for herself and her son, revisionist no. 2-Master Laksh @ Lavlesh, has been allowed and the respondent has been directed to pay total Rs. 11,000/- (Rs.9,000/- to the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal and Rs. 2,000/- to the revisionist no. 2, Master Laksh @ Lavlesh), as maintenance. 5. In CRLR No. 10 of 2018, the revisionists have sought enhancement of the amount of maintenance awarded in the case. 6. In CRLR No. 575 of 2019, the respondent has challenged the impugned order granting maintenance to the revisionists. 7. The respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal has died, as told by Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate, who earlier appeared for the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal. 8. Since CRLR No. 575 of 2019 is an admitted revision, it is being decided, as an admitted revision has to be decided irrespective of the presence or absence of the parties. In the case of Pranab Kumar Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 144 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, held that: “Whether it was an accused person or it was a complainant who has moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, if the High Court has issued a rule that rule has to be heard and determined in accordance with law, whether or not the petitioner in the High Court is alive or dead, or whether he is represented in the Court by a legal practitioner.” 9. The case is based on an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), filed by the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal. According to it, revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal and the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal were married on 27.11.2009, but after marriage, the revisionist no. The case is based on an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), filed by the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal. According to it, revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal and the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal were married on 27.11.2009, but after marriage, the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal was harassed and tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry. She was tortured. She was treated badly. She gave birth to a child from the wedlock, but, finally, according to the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal, she was expelled from her matrimonial house on 23.01.2012. Thereafter, the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal did not take care of her. She is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal is an Assistant Professor in a university and gets Rs. 42,000/- per month as salary. 10. The respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal filed objections to the application filed under Section 125 of the Code. According to him, it is the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal, who had made his life miserable. She would take quarrels and would try to lower his reputation in the society. Therefore, she had filed multiple litigations against him. According to the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal, the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal, on her own, without any reason, left the company of the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal. She is a highly educated woman. 11. In evidence, on behalf of the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal, she herself was examined and one witness, M.C. Pathak was also examined as PW2. The respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal also examined himself as a witness. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order passed in the case, the maintenance was granted. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionists would submit that now the husband of the revisionist no. 1, Smt. Rakshita Kandpal, has died, therefore, the order may not be disturbed. 13. The Court requested Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate to assist the Court in the matter. He would submit that since the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal is no more, the revisions are academic only. 14. As stated, a revision has to be decided on merits. 15. In her evidence, the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal has reiterated the version of her application under Section 125 of the Code and has stated that after marriage, she was harassed and tortured for multiple reasons, and once, she was expelled from her matrimonial house. Parties have other litigations also. As stated, a revision has to be decided on merits. 15. In her evidence, the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal has reiterated the version of her application under Section 125 of the Code and has stated that after marriage, she was harassed and tortured for multiple reasons, and once, she was expelled from her matrimonial house. Parties have other litigations also. It is also revealed in the evidence that, in fact, the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal was in jail for some time. After discussing all these aspects, the court below has observed that the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal has sufficient reasons for staying separate from her husband Dr. Hemant Kandpal. 16. On the means to survive, the court below has categorically recorded that the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal is not able to maintain herself, though she is highly qualified. The respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal could not also adduce any evidence to establish that the revisionist no. 1-Rakshita Kandpal has means to survive. Admittedly, the respondent-Dr. Hemant Kandpal is working in the university. After accessing the income of the parties, their social status and other factors, the court below has passed the order granting maintenance. 17. Having considered, this Court does not find any reason to make any interference in the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere. Accordingly, the revisions deserve to be dismissed. 18. The revisions are dismissed.