IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 526 of 2011 Mahendra Sindhwal S/o late Bharpuru R/o Village Rakshiya, Patti Thati Kathurh, District Tehri Garhwal. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal. 2. Smt. Maheshwari D/o Shri Bharosha R/o Village Bhatgaon, Presently residing at Mayaka Village Toli, Patti Thati Kathurh, Tehsil Ghansali, Distt. Tehri Garhwal. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, present for respondent State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 2 Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 20th of May 2011, passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) / Judicial Magistrate I Class, Tehri Garhwal, in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2011, Maheshwari Devi Vs. Mahendra Sindhwal and others, and order dated 07.06.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2011, whereby said court has affirmed the order of the trial court. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are not retrospective in nature, and the courts below have erred in law in entertaining the petition. 4) I have examined the impugned orders challenged before this court, and gone through the other papers on record. The negligence to maintain the wife and not allowing her to stay in the matrimonial house by her husband is a continuous act on the part of the husband, and after the commencement of the new Act, if such negligence or act continues, in the opinion of this court, the petition is maintainable under the aforesaid Act. 5) It is also pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 is not an admitted marriage, and the trial court has erred in law in holding the respondent No. 2 a legally 3 wedded wife of the petitioner. This is a question of fact which has been examined by the trial court, after recording evidence of both the parties. The appellate court has also applied its mind and after hearing the parties, concurred with the view taken by the trial court. This court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact, which is based on the record. 6) For the reasons as discussed above, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed, summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 20, 2011. H. Negi