2025:UHC:3959 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1261 of 2022 15th May, 2025 Sishupal Singh Rawat ………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …………..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Nalin Saun, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Present C482 application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 25.07.2018 along with entire proceedings of Misc. Criminal Case No.3 of 2012, Smt. Rakhi Rawat & another Vs. Shishupal Singh Rawat & others, under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2005”) and impugned order dated 28.04.2022, passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2018, Shishupal Singh Rawat Vs. State of Uttarakhand. 2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with respondent no.2 on 23.05.2205 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and out of the said wedlock a child was born. After some lapse of time, due to trivial issue acrimony grew between them resulting into nuisance. On seeing the conduct of respondent no.2, father of the applicant expelled both husband and wife from his property. Thereafter respondent no.2 moved a complaint before the learned Ist Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in the year 1 2025:UHC:3959 2012 under the provisions of Act of 2005 with the allegations of torture and harassment. Learned Ist Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun vide impugned order dated 25.07.2018 partly allowed the above complaint and under Section 18 of the Act of 2005 directed the applicant not to cause any domestic violence and under Section 19 directed the applicant to provide for one room, kitchen with washroom/bathroom or in alternate pay ₹2,000/- per month for rent and under Section 20 directed to pay ₹8,000/- per month as maintenance. Against the said order dated 25.07.2018 the applicant preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2018, which too was dismissed vide order dated 28.04.2022. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments and orders, the applicant is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun without appreciating facts and circumstances of the case and without considering the grounds taken in the appeal by the applicant in a very routine and cursory manner dismissed the appeal of the applicant vide impugned order dated 28.04.2022 and have also erred in assessing income of the applicant and without there being any documentary evidence regarding income excessive amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.8,000/- has been granted. 4. He further submits that while passing of the impugned order the learned Magistrate failed to consider that the family members of applicant are living separately and applicant and the complainant were living separately, but even then the court passed impugned order against them also which is bad in the eyes of law. 2 2025:UHC:3959 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the State as well as respondent no.2 submits that both the judgments and orders under challenge before this Court are legally sound and perfect; therefore, do not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case as well as reasoning assigned by learned Magistrate as well as by appellate court, this Court is of the opinion that courts below are correct in their view of rejecting the said application in view of the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 7. In this view of the matter, I find no irregularity or illegality in the judgments and orders passed by the courts below. There are concurrent findings of fact against the applicant and there is no ground for interference in this matter. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application fails and is hereby dismissed. 8. In this view of the matter, the C482 application is dismissed accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 15.05.2025 SK 3