2025:UHC:684 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1165 of 2024 10 February, 2025 Sunder Lal Kandwal --applicant Versus Sangeeta Kandwal & another --respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Yash Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for the applicant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant assailing the order dated 27.09.2023, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Joshimath in Misc. Criminal Case No.73 of 2022, Sunder Lal Kandwal vs. Sangeeta Kandwal & another, whereby the application filed by the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The applicant has further put to challenge the order dated 21.03.2024, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar) in Criminal Revision No.28 of 2023, Sunder Lal Kandwal vs. Sangeeta Kandwal, whereby the revision preferred by the applicant against the order dated 27.09.2023 has been dismissed. 2. The facts in nutshell are that on 26.07.2018, a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance had been instituted by the respondent no.1, wherein the judgment was passed on 29.08.2019, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per 1 2025:UHC:684 month as maintenance to the respondent no.1 and her minor son. There-against, Criminal Revision No.24 of 2019 was instituted before the Sessions Judge, however, the said revision, due to the compromise reached between the parties, before the National Lok Adalat, was decided on 11.09.2021, whereby it was directed that the applicant shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondents instead of Rs.2,000/- as directed earlier. 3. The application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant, wherein he stated that due to being 40% disabled, he is unable to pay the amount of maintenance since he is dependent on the disability pension of Rs.1,500/- received from Social Welfare Department. The applicant also prayed that he is still under treatment in the Government Hospital, Herbertpur. In that application, he also mentioned accident occurred on 04.10.2017 in which he was injured. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has argued that the applicant being physically disabled and having no source of earning and further dependent upon the meager amount of pension obtained from Social Welfare Department of the State, is unable to pay the amount of maintenance, which was modified before the National Lok Adalat. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the respondent no.1-Smt. Sangeeta Kandwal is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, it is a primary responsibility of the applicant to maintain his wife and his minor son. I find no irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the 2 2025:UHC:684 trial court. There are concurrent findings of fact against the applicant. 6. Having perused the impugned judgments and orders, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for interference in this matter. The criminal misc. application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.02.2025 AK 3