Allahabad High Court
Chanda Maurya vs Bharat Lal Maurya on 17 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90374-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 226 of 2019
Appellant :- Chanda Maurya
Respondent :- Bharat Lal Maurya
Counsel for Appellant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Gaurav Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- Santosh Dwivedi,Indradeo
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
1. List revised.
2. No one is present for the respondent.
3. Heard Shri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant.
4. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.1.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi rejecting the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Matrimonial Petition No. 1186 of 2017 (Bharat Lal Maurya vs. Chanda Maurya).
5. By the impugned order dated 10.1.2019 the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance filed by the appellant-wife has been rejected on the ground that she has eloped with one Ashish Kediya and this fact has not been disputed even by her own brother. On the contrary. the charge sheet has been submitted against Ashish Kediya for this act, therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant herein is legally wedded wife of Bharat Lal Maurya and therefore she is entitled for maintenance and the court below has gone beyond the scope of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offence of 498 enticing away of the appellant was not proved and this cannot be a ground for rejecting the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. For convenience, Section 498 is quoted as under:
"498. Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman.?
Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
8. It is not in dispute that N.C.R. was lodged by the respondent herein, husband of the appellant herein, wherein charge sheet has also submitted. It clearly prima facie establishes that the husband has lodged an information that his wife was taken away by Ashish Kediya. Ashish Kediya was admittedly found guilty during investigation and charge sheet was submitted. This fact factually speaking that the appellant had gone with Ashish Kediya whether enticing away or on her own will, has not been disputed in the entire affidavit filed in support of the Stay application. The court below has also recorded a finding that this fact was never disputed. In such circumstances, we find no illegality, infirmity in the order impugned. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
9. We find no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as there is no dispute about the fact that she has eloped with one Ashish Kediya and a report was filed in this respect, wherein charge sheet has also submitted. The report of this incident was also given by one Jitendra Kuamr, real brother of the appellant herein.
10. The interim order dated 26.3.2019 staying the further proceedings of the matrimonial case stands vacated.
11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned within a period of 15 days from today.
12. The Court shall proceed in the matter and conclude the same, as the dispute is pending before the court below since 2017. It is expected that the same shall be decided on its own merits as expeditiously as possible as per roaster available.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024
Sumaira
