IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 1127 of 2011 Mukul Kumar Goel S/o Sri Dinesh Chandra Goel, R/o 230 Krishna Nagar Bulandshahar, Presently R/o A4-43 Metropolis City SIDCUL Residential Center, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ….…..Petitioner Versus 1- State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary (Home) Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2- S.H.O. Thana Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3- Incharge Police Chowki SIDCUL, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar 4- Smt. Poonam W/o Sri Mukul Kumar Goel D/o Sri K.K.Gupta, R/o S-E 345-B Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad. 5- Mr. Krishna Kumar Gupta, S/o Sri Prem Chand Gupta R/o R1/59 Rajnagar Ghaziabad. 6- Hitendra Kumar Mittal S/o Sri Krishna Kumar Gupta R/o R1/59 Rajnagar, Ghaziabad. 7- Mr. Shriniwas Agarwal S/o unknown R/o K.K.1 Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. ……Respondents Mr. Anirudh Joshi, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Adhikari, A.G.A., present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought direction, restraining respondent No.2 Station House Officer, Police Station-Rudrapur, and respondent No.3 In-charge Police Chowki, SIDCUL, from exerting pressure against the petitioner, till the petitioner files an appeal 2 against the decree passed under Section 9 and one under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3) It appears to be a case of matrimonial dispute. In nutshell, it has been stated that petitioner’s suit for divorce has been dismissed, and the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, of wife (respondent No.4) has been decreed by the Ghaziabad court in January, 2011. It further appears that an application under 125 of Cr.P.C., was moved before the court concerned by the respondent No.4, in which, ` 5000/- per month has been directed to be paid by the petitioner to his wife. Though, the papers of execution proceedings of said maintenance case are not filed with the petition, but it appears that in respect of the same that execution process reached in district Udham Singh Nagar (where the petitioner is posted). And at the police station he was called and asked to make payment due to his wife. 4) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the State, and after going through the papers on record, in the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed in the petition. 5) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Interim relief application No. 13741 of 2011, also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 27.12.2011 JM