Mahatam Bhagat vs Savitri Devi And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 25.07.2022, passed in Criminal Case No.183 of 2021, Smt. Savitri Devi vs. Mahatam Bhagat, passed by the court of Judge, Family Court-I, Udham Singh Nagar (for short, “the case”). By the impugned order, an application for interim maintenance filed by the respondent no.1 (“the wife”) has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the wife as interim maintenance.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It appears that the respondent no.1 (“the wife”) filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) seeking maintenance from the revisionist. According to the wife, she and the revisionist married 30 years prior to filing of the application but, the revisionist solemnized marriage with another woman and deserted the wife and did not take care of her. Initially, the revisionist had agreed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife but subsequently, he refused to make that payment. According to the wife, she is not able to maintain herself whereas, the revisionist is employed and gets Rs. 55,000/-per month salary from Pantnagar University. It is this application during pendency of which an application for interim maintenance was filed, which was objected to by the revisionist. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 7,000/-per month as an interim maintenance.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would argue that after marriage in the year 1988, the wife deserted the revisionist in the year 1997 and started living with his brother in adultery. In the year 2021 suddenly, the wife sought maintenance from the revisionist.

It is argued that despite these objections having been taken, interim maintenance has been granted to the wife.

Certain documents have been filed in the revision, as well by the revisionist. In the impugned order, objections and arguments as raised by the parties have been discussed. The court below has also discussed the documents that were filed by the parties.

Admittedly, the revisionist and the wife did marry long back. It is the allegation of the wife that the revisionist entered into the second marriage with a woman called Aarti. This has not been admitted by the revisionist. Along with the list, a document dated 28.11.2021 has been filed by the revisionist, which is a document purportedly issued by Gram Panchayat Raj Bankatia. It reads that after marriage since the wife could not conceive a child, the revisionist married with another woman and thereafter, the wife started staying with his brother.

At this stage deeper scrutiny is not expected. The documents which have been filed by the revisionist itself revealed that it is not the wife, who deserted or started living in adultery instead it is the revisionist, who entered into another marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with the wife and under those circumstance, the documents says that the wife started staying with younger brother of the revisionist. Though, according to the document dated 28.11.2021, the wife started staying with the brother of the revisionist as husband and wife, but definitely it would also find scrutiny during the final disposal of the application under Section 125 of the Code that has been filed by the wife. At this stage, this Court is of the view that the court below did not commit any error, illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned order. Therefore, the revision has no substance and deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The revision is dismissed in limine.