IMPORTANT POINT
A unilateral declaration of divorce is insufficient under Hindu law, thus allowing a spouse to claim maintenance despite claims of prior divorce.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

Heard Sri S.S.Chaubey, the learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. The instant revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed assailing validity of the judgment and order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shravasti in Maintenance Case No.36/2019, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party-wife of the revisionist. The validity of the judgment has been assailed on the ground that the parties had taken divorce by mutual consent in accordance with the customs of the locality, about 14 years prior to filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and this fact was concealed by the opposite party in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The judgment has also been assailed on the ground that the opposite party did not disclose her source of maintenance for the long period of 14 years between dissolution of marriage between the parties and filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. The Family Court had framed six points for determination, the second being whether the opposite party is living separately from the revisionist without any sufficient reason. While deciding this issue, the Family Court mentioned that it is contended that a divorce agreement was written on 29.11.2005.

5. A copy of the alleged divorce agreement executed by mutual consent has been annexed with the revision, a bare perusal whereof indicates that it was written unilaterally by the opposite party on a stamp paper worth Rs. 10/-. Numerous other persons have put their signatures on this unilateral declaration written and signed by the opposite party and the revisionist has also signed on it as a witness of its execution but he is not a party to execution of this unilateral divorce declaration.

6. A marriage between two Hindus can be dissolved only by modes recognized by the Hindu Marriage Act and unilateral declaration executed on a stamp paper worth Rs.10/- is not a mode of dissolution by Hindu Marriage recognized by law. Therefore, the marriage between the parties was not dissolved in accordance with law and she continues to be legally wedded wife of the revisionist.

7. The Family Court has also recorded that the revisionist stated in his cross examination that he got married to one Sunita in his childhood. Some litigation took place between the revisionist and his first wife Sunita, which was closed in the year 2002. Thereafter the revisionist married the opposite party and got separated from her in the year 2005. In the year 2008, he married yet another lady Bina Pathak.

8. The Family Court has observed that the revisionist has not given any particulars of the litigation that took place between him and his first wife Sunita and no document relating to that litigation was brought on record by the revisionist.

9. Regarding the plea of delay of 14 years in filing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Family Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C.does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing the application. The Family Court took into consideration the statement of the opposite party that earlier she had filed an application for maintenance in the year 2011 but her brother died after some time and she was very sad, for this reason, she could not pursue the case. Thereafter, she filed the application in question.

10. The family Court concluded that without dissolution of marriage with the opposite party, the revisionist has married another lady Bina Pathak and three sons have borne out of the wedlock between the revisionist and Bina pathak and this gives rise to a sufficient cause for the opposite party to live separate from the revisionist.

11. There appears to be no error or illegality in the aforesaid findings of the family court.

12. Regarding quantum of maintenance, the Family Court noted the statement of the revisionist that he works as a priest. DW2 Munna Lal alias Radhika Nandan s