Unknown vs Shruti Sharma And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 526 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs Shruti Sharma And Another on 5 June, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:4577
                                                      Reportable


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
         Writ Petition Criminal No. 116 of 2024
                         05th June, 2025
Bhaskar Tiwari                                    ..........Petitioner
                               Versus
Shruti Sharma and another                        ......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. H C Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vibhor Tewari and Mr. Kailash Chandra Tewari, Advocates for
respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing/setting aside order dated 22.01.2024, passed by learned Family Judge, Haldwani, Nainital in Misc. Case No.321 of 2021 "Shruti Sharma and another Vs. Bhaskar Tiwari and to allow the application dated 07.10.2023 Paper No.45 Ga filed by the petitioner.

2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner at the time of marriage was employed with a private company at NOIDA engaged in business of tourism and had taken a house on rent at Gaziabad. The petitioner is the only son of his parents, therefore, prior to marriage it was made clear to respondent no.1 that the petitioner would come to Haldwani to take care of his parents and if need be he will call his parents to live with him at Ghaziabad and respondent no.1 was agreeable to it. Soon after marriage respondent no.1 submitted that she does not wish to live with her in-laws at Haldwani and want to stay with the petitioner at Ghaziabad and within two weeks of the marriage left her matrimonial

2025:UHC:4577 house and went to her parental house at Haldwani. The petitioner in order to save his marriage was forced to leave his parents at Haldwani and started living with respondent at Ghaziabad in a rented accommodation. Thereafter the respondent no.1 would neither go to Haldwani to look after the parents of the petitioner nor would call them to stay with her and the petitioner at Ghaziabad. Whenever parents of petitioner would come to Ghaziabad, respondent no.1 would insult them and misbehave with them. In the month of March 2016 a female child-respondent no.2 was born from their wedlock. Thereafter, the petitioner shifted in his new house at NOIDA and the respondent came to live with him in that house only from March, 2018. Due to mental cruelty and harassment to the petitioner he resigned from his company and decided to set up his own business at Haldwani, on which the respondent-wife left house of the petitioner at NOIDA along with her daughter. From there the respondent-wife came to Haldwani and made a complaint in 'one stop centre' Haldwani. Thereafter the said proceedings were dropped as the respondent-wife herself did not participate in the proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that even after repeated efforts to save his marriage became futile. He filed a divorce suit under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent no.1 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Respondent no.1 in the meantime filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance of herself and her daughter registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.321 of 2021, Shruti Sharma and another Vs. Bhaskar Tiwari. The petitioner filed an objection against the said application stating that

2025:UHC:4577 the respondent no.1 herself deserted him without reasonable cause for two years and thus she is not entitled for maintenance. The court after considering the objections filed by him directed the petitioner to pay ₹10,000/- to respondent no.1 and ₹9,000/- to respondent no.2 as interim maintenance. After getting the interim maintenance respondent no.1 tried to build up a new case by filing amendment application, but the said application was dismissed by court stating that amendment sought by respondent cannot be a typing mistake and she is trying to build up an entirely new case by way of withdrawing her own case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-wife as well as petitioner submitted affidavits disclosing their assets but the respondent-wife did not disclose the details of her bank accounts. In her cross-examination she admitted that she has three different bank accounts and also admitted that she is highly qualified having masters degree.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that when the petitioner filed interrogatories so that respondent could disclose her bank account details, the trial court erroneously held that interrogatories can only be filed in civil case and as 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings are criminal in nature, therefore, the law laid down in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 regarding interrogatories is not applicable. The counsel for the petitioner submits that this is blatantly against the guidelines issued by Apex Court in para no.72.6 of Rajnesh (supra).

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 in her counter affidavit submits that the present writ petition is

2025:UHC:4577 not maintainable as the petitioner could have challenged the impugned order by way of revision. She further submits that hyper technical arguments are being raised by the petitioner so that respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 could be deprived of maintenance.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. After perusal of the material available on record and going through the relevant portion of Rajnesh (supra) passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that a complete disclosure of earnings is necessary and mandatory and the trial court has committed irregularity in holding that the guidelines pronounced by the Honb'le Supreme Court in the aforesaid case are not applicable to 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings.

8. Relevant paras of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another are herein quoted below:-

72.6. (f) If there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek permission of the court to serve interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under Order 11 CPC. On filing of the affidavit, the court may invoke the provisions of Order 10 CPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so.

The income of one party is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The court may invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal knowledge of the party concerned.

9. It is noticeable that judgment of Rajnesh (supra) was delivered by the Apex Court in a case arising out of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance filed by respondents. Although in para no.72.6 (f) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, provision of CPC have been referred, but in the earlier part of the para

2025:UHC:4577 no.72.6 (f), it is directed that the aggrieved party may seek permission of the Court to serve interrogatories. It appears that the trial court got confused from later part of the para no.72.6 (f) which referred to provision of CPC. The purpose is to get clear information regarding the income of the parties to arrive at a judicious decision while fixing the amount of maintenance.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 22.01.2024, passed by learned Family Judge, Haldwani is hereby set aside and consequently the application dated 07.10.2023 (Paper No.45 Ga) filed by the petitioner is allowed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.06.2025 SK