Uttarakhand High Court
Mahendra Arya vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 March, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 131 of 2024
Mahendra Arya ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the revisionist through video
conferencing.
Mr. M.A. Khan A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
judgment and order dated 23.01.2024, passed in Misc.
Criminal Case No. 258 of 2023, Preeti Arya Vs. Mahindra
Arya by the court of Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar,
District Dehradun ("the Case"). By it, the revisionist has
been directed to pay Rs.4000/- per month each to the
private respondents as interim maintenance.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. It appears that the respondent no.2 filed an
application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"), seeking maintenance from the
revisionist on the ground that she and the revisionist were
married on 21.02.2008. She was a divorcee having a child
from her earlier marriage, whereas, the revisionist was
unmarried. After sometime, according to the respondent
no.2, the revisionist started abusing and did maarpeet with
her. The respondent no.2 also came to know about obscene
activity of the revisionist. She was compelled to leave her
matrimonial house and she has been staying separately
from the revisionist. She is not able to maintain herself,
whereas, the revisionist earns Rs.50,000/- per month.
4. In his objection, the revisionist has denied the
allegations. In fact, according to the revisionist, the
respondent no.2 misrepresented about her divorce from her
earlier husband. They stayed together. When the revisionist
demanded the divorce paper of respondent no.2 from her
earlier husband, the respondent no.2 levelled false
allegations against him. An application for interim
maintenance was filed, which has been allowed by the
impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law. He would
submit that the respondent no.2 has not divorced from her
earlier husband, therefore, she is not legally wedded wife of
the revisionist. He admits that the revisionist is ready and
willing to pay interim maintenance to a son born due to
relationship between the revisionist and the respondent
no.2.
6. It is admitted by learned counsel for the
revisionist that the revisionist and the respondent no.2
stayed together since, 2008 and a child was born from their
relationship. What is being argued is that the respondent
no.2 had not divorced from earlier husband, therefore, their
marriage is not lawful.
7. The court by the impugned order has not finally
adjudicated the rights and liabilities of parties. What is
decided is the application for interim maintenance, so that a
wife in need may continue to the litigation and get
maintenance. She may not be left in a condition of destitute.
The respondent no.2 in her application under Section 125 of
the Code has categorically stated that she was earlier
married and had divorced and she also had a child born
from her first marriage. The respondent no.2 further states
that after her divorce from her first marriage, she and the
revisionist were married.
8. According to the revisionist, when he demanded
divorce paper from the respondent no.2, she levelled false
allegations against him. Whether the marriage of the
revisionist and the respondent no.2 is lawful or not, it has
yet to be ascertained. As stated, the respondent no.2 has a
positive assertion that she is a divorcee having lawful
divorce from her husband.
9. It is undisputed that both the revisionist and the
respondent no.2 stayed together since 2008 and a child was
born from their relationship. Final adjudication with regard
to the marriage between the revisionist and the respondent
no.2 may only be done once parties are permitted to lead
evidence in support of their claims. That stage has yet to
come. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is of the view that
the court below has rightly awarded maintenance to the
respondent nos. 2 and 3.
10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
there is no reason to make any interference in the impugned
order. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed at
the stage of admission itself.
11. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
07.03.2024
Jitendra
