The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the wife to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. despite the divorce decree and permanent alimony awarded under the Hindu Marriage Act, based on the non-finality of the divorce decree and the wife's non-acceptance of the alimony.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.3.2021 passed by Additional Special Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 653 of 2013 Smt. Sneha Vs. Tarun Pandit. By the impugned order the learned court below has allowed the maintenance application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. of O.P. No. 2 Smt. Sneha Pandit and has awarded Rs. 25,000/-per month as maintenance to her from the date of filing of the application.

2. In brief the facts are that O.P. No. 2 Smt. Sneha Pandit moved an application for maintenance U/s 125 Cr.P.C. against revisionist Tarun Pandit with the allegations that her marriage was solemnized with opposite party on 22.11.2009 and she performed her marital obligations after the marriage. After sometime of the marriage the behaviour of opposite party was not cordial with her and he started to mentally and physically torture her. Making certain other allegations it was further stated that opposite party has left her at her maternal house and since 30.11.2013 she is living with her father. The opposite party is ignoring her and not maintaining her and is not ready to keep her with him and has deserted her. She has no source of income while opposite party is Squadron Leader in Air Force and his salary is Rs. 80,000/-per month. On the aforesaid ground Rs. 40,000/-as maintenance allowance per month was claimed by O.P. No. 2.

The revisionist (opposite party) filed his reply in which he admitted the marriage but denied rest of the allegations and further submitted that the applicant herself without any just cause is living separately from her husband and it is she who has deserted the opposite party. Revisionist (opposite party) has also made certain allegations against the applicant and stated that she is responsible for the whole affairs and she does not want to live with opposite party. It is further alleged that applicant has falsely shown her address of NOIDA Gautam Budh Nagar. In fact applicant and her parents live at house no. D-84 Saket Colony, District Meerut and that is their permanent address. The address mentioned in the application is false. The applicant has filed the application with false facts concealing the real facts and has not come with clean hands. The learned court below after taking evidence and hearing arguments of the parties by the impugned judgment and order has allowed the application and awarded the maintenance allowance.

3. One of the grounds on which the impugned judgment and order has been challenged is that the revisionist (opposite party) has taken specific objections regarding jurisdiction of the court at Gautam Budh Nagar but the court below has not recorded any finding regarding jurisdiction of the court at Gautam Budh Nagar. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in para 11 and 12 of the objections filed by the opposite party there are specific objections and it is alleged that O.P. No. 2 was living with her parents in their house at 84 D, Saket Colony, Meerut and not at Gautam Budh Nagar. This objection has also found support from the order dated 29.8.2016 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in proceeding U/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the O.P. No. 2. The court below recorded the specific finding that O.P. No. 2 was residing at 84 D, Saket Colony, Meerut and not at Gautam Budh Nagar. The said finding has never been challenged by the O.P. No. 2 before any higher authority and the same has attained the finality. Therefore, the court at Gautam Budh Nagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition U/s 125 Cr.P.C. and the judgment and order is without jurisdiction, illegal and deserves to be set-aside. Learned counsel also contended that entire criminal proceedings were also initiated by O.P. No. 2 at Meerut and not at Gautam Budh Nagar. This clearly shows that O.P. No. 2 was residing permanently at Meerut and not at Gautam Budh Nagar but just to harass and pressurize the revisioni