Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Ravindra Kumar - Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Criminal Revision No.222 of 2023
Decided On : 09-07-2024
MAINTENANCE - FAMILY LAW - The court addressed the issue of maintenance under family law, emphasizing the importance of amicable settlement between parties. The court condoned the delay in filing the revision and allowed the parties to resolve their dispute, leading to the dismissal of the revision as the parties had reconciled and were living together.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist challenged an ex parte judgment from the Family Court that ordered him to pay maintenance to his wife and son. The revision was delayed, and a compounding application was filed by both parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court condoned the delay in filing the revision and noted that both parties had amicably settled their dispute and were living together for the past year.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the revision should be condoned and whether the maintenance order should be upheld given the parties' reconciliation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the parties had settled their dispute amicably and were cohabiting, the maintenance order was no longer necessary, leading to the dismissal of the revision.
Result: The revision was dismissed, and the compounding application was also disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :
The revisionist proposes to challenge ex parte judgment and order dated 26.11.2019, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.155 of 2019, Smt. Preeti and another vs. Ravindra Kumar, by the Judge, Family Court, Nainital (“the case”), by which, an application filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 seeking maintenance has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay total Rs.3,000/- per month (Rs.2,000/- to the respondent no.2, his wife and Rs.1,000 to the respondent no.3, his son).
2. The revision is delayed. The delay has yet not been condoned.
3. Today, a compounding Application has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the delay may be condoned and the revision may be decided on the basis of the statements of the parties.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Having considered, the delay in filing the revision is condoned. The Delay Condonation Application (IA) No.1 of 2023 is allowed.
7. The revisionist and the respondent no.2 have filed a joint compounding application supported by the affidavits.
8. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that both the parties are staying together for the past one year. The revisionist and the respondent no.2 are present before the Court, as identified by their respective counsel. They have accepted that they have amicably settled the dispute and they have been staying together.
9. Having considered the nature of the offence and the other attending factors, this Court is of the view that since the parties have settled the dispute amicably and they are staying together the criminal revision may be decided accordingly.
10. Since parties have settled the dispute amicably, nothing survives in this revision. It stands disposed of accordingly.
11. Compounding application also stands disposed of accordingly.
The court established that amicable settlement between parties in family law disputes can lead to the dismissal of maintenance claims.
A litigant's claim of inadequate legal advice must be substantiated with evidence; mere assertions are insufficient to condone delays in legal proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
