Allowed

Smt. Rajeswari Kothari v. Additional.Family Judge,Rishikesh

Uttarakhand HC5 Jun 2023CRLR/315/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision against the dismissal of an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed. The Court enforced a compromise agreement dated 17.11.2020, entered between the parties during mediation, rendering the revision valid and the compromise part of the court order.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was allowed in terms of the compromise agreement dated 17.11.2020, which was made a part of the court order.

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			CRLR No. 315 of 2013 Hon’ble Pan k aj Pu r oh it , J. Ms. Akleema Parveen, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the revisionists. 2. Mr. Vikram Singh Dhapola, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2013, passed by learned Additional Family Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Case No. 67 of 2010, “Smt. Rajeshwari Kothari and Others Vs. Shri Parshuram Kothari”, whereby the application filed by revisionist no.1 i.e., Smt. Rajeshwari Kothari and her daughter (Hema Kothari) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance has been dismissed and at the same time, it was partly allowed for revisionist no.2 (Monika Kothari) by awarding the maintenance of `2000/- per month from respondent no.2 – husband i.e., Shri Parshuram Kothari. 5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on seeing the possibility of reconciliation between the parties vide order dated 03.11.2020 has referred the matter to Mediation Centre, Rishikesh, District Dehradun for mediation and directed the parties to appear before the In-charge of Mediation Cell, Rishikesh, on

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

CRLR No. 315 of 2013
Hon’ble Pan k aj Pu r oh it , J.
Ms. Akleema Parveen, learned counsel holding
brief of Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the
revisionists.
2.
Mr. Vikram Singh Dhapola, learned counsel
holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned
counsel for the respondents.
3.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4.
This criminal revision has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2013,
passed
by
learned
Additional
Family
Judge,
Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Case No. 67 of 2010,
“Smt. Rajeshwari Kothari and Others Vs. Shri
Parshuram Kothari”, whereby the application filed by
revisionist no.1 i.e., Smt. Rajeshwari Kothari and her
daughter (Hema Kothari) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
for maintenance has been dismissed and at the same
time, it was partly allowed for revisionist no.2
(Monika Kothari) by awarding the maintenance of
`2000/- per month from respondent no.2 – husband
i.e., Shri Parshuram Kothari.
5.
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on seeing
the possibility of reconciliation between the parties
vide order dated 03.11.2020 has referred the matter to
Mediation Centre, Rishikesh, District Dehradun for
mediation and directed the parties to appear before
the In-charge of Mediation Cell, Rishikesh, on

18.11.20 possibilit	20 for the p y of amicable set	urpose of exploring the tlement.
6. It	appears from t	he record that the parties
appeared	before the medi	ation centre, on 17.11.2020
and an	agreement was	entered into between the
parties i	n the mediation	centre on the terms and
condition	s enumerated	in the compromise date
17.11.20 1125/XV mediator well as parties.	20. The District /2020 dated 18.1 to this Court al the compromise	Judge vide its Letter No. 1.2020 sent the report of the ong with the documents as entered into between the
7. To	day, in the pre	sence of both the learned
counsel	for the parties	this Court perused the
comprom parties.	ise dated 17.11.	2020 arrived at between the
8. In	view of the	compromise entered into
between and resp criminal comprom dated 17. Shubham	revisionist no.1 ondent no.2 – S revision is here ise rendered her 11.2020 shall for	– Smt. Rajeshwari Kothari hri. Parshuram Kothari, the by allowed in terms of the einabove. The compromise m part of this order. ( Pan k aj Pu r oh it , J.) 0 5 .0 6 .2 0 2 3

18.11.20
possibilit

20 for the p
y of amicable set

urpose of exploring the
tlement.

6.
It

appears from t

he record that the parties

appeared

before the medi

ation centre, on 17.11.2020

and an

agreement was

entered into between the

parties i

n the mediation

centre on the terms and

condition

s enumerated

in the compromise date

17.11.20
1125/XV
mediator
well as
parties.

20. The District
/2020 dated 18.1
to this Court al
the compromise

Judge vide its Letter No.
1.2020 sent the report of the
ong with the documents as
entered into between the

7.
To

day, in the pre

sence of both the learned

counsel

for the parties

this Court perused the

comprom
parties.

ise dated 17.11.

2020 arrived at between the

8.
In

view of the

compromise entered into

between
and resp
criminal
comprom
dated 17.

Shubham

revisionist no.1
ondent no.2 – S
revision is here
ise rendered her
11.2020 shall for

– Smt. Rajeshwari Kothari
hri. Parshuram Kothari, the
by allowed in terms of the
einabove. The compromise
m part of this order.
( Pan k aj Pu r oh it , J.)
0 5 .0 6 .2 0 2 3

Smt. Rajeswari Kothari v. Additional.Family Judge,Rishikesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajeswari Kothari v. Additional.Family Judge,Rishikesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Magan Singh Bisht Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Shiv Raj Singh Bhandari Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Jan Shiksha Prasar Samiti Registered Office Vs Gunanand Dhani

Mukesh Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sharafat Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deep Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand