Uttarakhand High Court
Colonel Kunwar Shakti Singh Rathore vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 20 June, 2017
Author: U.C.Dhyani
Bench: U.C.Dhyani
C-482 Petition No. 1248 of 2012 U.C.Dhyani, J.
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, present for applicant.
Mr. Prem Kaushal, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent no.1.
None is present for the respondent no. 2 & 3, despite service of notices.
By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the impugned orders dated 05.11.2012 & 06.11.2012, passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee, in Case No. 63 of 2007, titled as Anita Rathore vs. Kunwar Shakti Singh Rathore under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that respondent no.2 Anita Rathore filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 14.06.2007 divulging her status as widow while marrying with applicant. At the time of filing of this application, she had already been married with one Kailash Ram on 27.01.2006 and got the marriage registered on 17.01.2008 in the office of Registrar, Hindu Marriage, Roorkee. So this is somewhat contradictory, as to how she could file application seeking maintenance against petitioner on 14.06.2007 while she was already married with Kailash Ram on 27.10.2006.
Since the private respondent (claimant) woman has not turned up before this Court despite service of notice upon her, therefore, it appears that she is not interested in pursuing the remedy against the applicant.
There seems to be substance in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that if such proceedings are allowed to be continued against present applicant, the same will amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
It will be a futile exercise to keep petition under Section C-482 Cr.P.C. pending before this Court.
The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. As a consequence thereof, the impugned orders dated 05.11.2012 & 06.11.2012, passed by Additional Family Judge, Roorkee, in Case No. 63 of 2007, titled as Anita Rathore vs. Kunwar Shakti Singh Rathore under Section 125 Cr.P.C, are hereby quashed.
Since present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being decided in the absence of private respondent, therefore, liberty is granted to her to move for recall of this order, if she feels aggrieved with the same.
(U.C.Dhyani, J.) 20.06.2017 Kaushal