Rajan Kumar Jha vs State of Bihar and Another

S.N. Jha, J.—This civil revision arises from an order by which the Court below has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance pendente lite u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to opposite party No. 2 Punam Kumari in a matrimonial case instituted by her for restitution of conjugal rites.

The petitioner has denied the factum of marriage. It is stated that he was kidnapped on the fateful day on which the marriage is alleged to have been solemnised, for which a criminal case was instituted. The Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the father of opposite party No. 2 and other members of the family. The case is pending trial. Opposite party No. 2 has denied the allegations.

Counsel for the parties made submissions at length. I however do not want to go into the facts of the case nor do I want to examine correctness of the order. If venture to do so, I will have to accept the case of one or the other party. This would obviously prejudice the other side. Whether the petitioner''s version is true or the case of the opposite party No. 2 is true, is to be decided on evidence which they are supposed to adduce in the Court below. Having regard to the nature of the controversy I have come to the conclusion that it is not a proper case in which any order for payment of maintenance pendente lite should be passed. The power to direct the respondent of the matrimonial case (husband or wife, as the case may be) is discretionary. In the facts of the case, I am of the view that the question of maintenance should await the final decision of the matrimonial case.

In the above premises, without going into the merit of the case I would set aside the impugned order and allow this civil revision.