IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Restoration Application No. 484 / 2010 Delay Condonation App. 645 / 2010 In Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 49 of 2010 Smt. Shakti Kaushal W/o Vinod Kumar Kaushal R/o House No. C-214, Sector, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. ...…………. Petitioner / applicant Versus Smt. Arvina W/o Aaditya Kaushal D/o Sardar Joshi R/o 127, Sadar Bazar Chakrota, Post Office Chakrota, District Dehradun. ...…………. Respondent Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate, present for the petitioner / applicant. Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate, present for the respondent / O.P. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is allowed to correct the wrong Section mentioned in 2 Application MCRC No. 645 of 2010. The clerical correction is made in the Court. 2) Heard on Delay Condonation Application MCRC No. 645 of 2010, and perused the affidavit of the applicant Shakti Kaushal. The delay is condoned in moving the restoration application. The application stands allowed. 3) Also, heard on Application MCRC No. 484 of 2010, for restoration of Criminal Misc. Application (C- 482) No. 49 of 2010, which was dismissed for non- prosecution on 09.04.2010, by this Court. The ground for absence is sufficiently explained in the affidavit accompanying the application. The MCRC Application No. 484 of 2010 is allowed, and the Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 49 of 2010, stands restored. 4) Also, heard on the main petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No. 49 of 2010. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is mother-in-law of the respondent Arvina, and she (the respondent) is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. from the mother-in-law. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent has sought no 3 relief as against the mother-in-law, as is evident from Annexure –1 to the petition filed by the petitioner, which is copy of the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court (Family Court, Dehradun). 7) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, the Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 49 of 2010 is disposed of with following direction: The proceedings as against the petitioner Smt. Shakti Kaushal, who is mother-in-law, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., are hereby quashed, but the trial court (Family Court, Dehradun) may proceed as against the husband (Aaditya Kaushal) on the Misc. Case No. 236 of 2009, filed by respondent Arvina, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 29, 2010. H. Negi