IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln (C482) No. 855 of 2005 Smt Vaishno Chawla W/o Late Shri H.N. Chawla, R/O 8/6 Rajendra Nagar , P.O Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, District Dehradun ………. …. Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, Dist-Dehradun 3. Smt. Komal Chawla W/O Shri Rahul Chawla, D/O Shri Surendra Nanda, R/O 14 preeti Enclave, Shimla Bypass, Dehradun, District-Dehradun …………Opposite parties Shri Mohd Azim, Advocate, Holding Brief of Shri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, present for the petitioner Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. No counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.3 even after being served with the notices. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned order dated 05.08.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Case No. 415 of 2 2003, Smt Komal Chawla vs. Rahul Chawla under section 125 of Cr.P.C. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.3 Komal Chawla got married to Rahul Chawla on 25.01.2001 at Dehradun. The respondent no.3 has prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month from her husband who is allegedly working in South Africa. (4) Vide impugned order dated 05.08.2005 the trial court has directed Rahul Chawla (son of the petitioner) to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month, to the respondent no.3. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner Vaishno Chawla is mother of Rahul Chawla. In other words petitioner Vaishno Chawla is mother in law of the respondent no.3. It is argued that the petitioner has no liability to pay the interim maintenance to the respondent no.3, nor is she party in the proceedings. In spite of this, the trial court has issued summons to the petitioner (copy of the summons is Annexure-3 to the petition), in which the Principal Judge, Family Court has directed Vaishno Devi to appear in person of 30th of September 2005 else the case would be heard ex- parte. (6) Having gone through the summons issued by the trial court against the petitioner (mother in law) to appear otherwise the case filed by respondent no.3 under section 125 3 of Cr.P.C would be heard ex -parte, is erroneous in law and without jurisdiction. Neither the petitioner Vaishno Chawla is party in the proceedings initiated under section 125 of Cr.P.C., nor has she any liability to pay the interim maintenance on behalf of her son Rahul Chawla. (7) In the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the summons issued against the petitoner Vaishno Chawla (mother in law) and the proceedings drawn against her in Criminal Case No. 415 of 2003 Komal Chawla vs. Rahul Chawla, by the trial court, are hereby quashed. Dt.15.6.2010 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)