Unknown vs Sohan Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2346 UK

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2346 UK
Judgement Date : 19 August, 2023

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs Sohan Singh on 19 August, 2023

                     Office Notes,
                    reports, orders
SL.                 or proceedings
         Date                                             COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                 or directions and
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      19.08.2023                       CRLR No. 571 of 2023
                                       Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Siddharth Sah, learned counsel appears for the revisionist and Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned Assistant Government Advocate appears for the State.

2. Admit.

3. Present Criminal Revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Misc. Criminal Case No. 60 of 2016 Smt. Baldeesh Kaur vs. Sohan Singh, whereby the Application moved by respondent No. 2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the present revisionist (husband) was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to Smt. Baldeesh Kaur- respondent No. 2 (wife) as maintenance.

4. The said judgment has been challenged by the revisionist on the ground that one-time maintenance has already been granted in a Panchayat by way of a written agreement, which was signed by the father of respondent No.2 and also by two witnesses. The said document, the revisionist has enclosed at Page No. 52 of the present revision. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that since one-time maintenance has already been given to respondent No. 2, she is not entitled to get any maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Counsel for the revisionist further submits that after taking the amount towards the one-time maintenance, respondent No. 2 purchased a land and thereafter, it was gifted by respondent No. 2 to her real brother during the pendency of proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

5. I have gone through the judgment under challenge, as also, the Agreement dated 02.07.1988.

6. From Paragraph-12 of the impugned judgment, it reveals that respondent No. 2 has denied that there is any such written agreement.

7. Undisputedly, the revisionist (husband) and

respondent No. 2 (wife) are living separately since last

more than thirty-five years, but this is also an

undisputed fact that either of the party never sought

any divorce from any Court. Therefore, as on today,

the revisionist cannot say that respondent No. 2 is not

his wife. Out of their wedlock, three girl children were

born. Out of the same, two did not survive. Only one

is alive. This requires consideration, and in view

thereof, let notice be issued to respondent No.2.