IMPORTANT POINT
Interim maintenance under Section 125 is essential to support a spouse in need during litigation, irrespective of the final determination of marriage legality.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :

The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 23.01.2024, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 258 of 2023, Preeti Arya Vs. Mahindra Arya by the court of Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun (“the Case”). By it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.4000/- per month each to the private respondents as interim maintenance.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It appears that the respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), seeking maintenance from the revisionist on the ground that she and the revisionist were married on 21.02.2008. She was a divorcee having a child from her earlier marriage, whereas, the revisionist was unmarried. After sometime, according to the respondent no.2, the revisionist started abusing and did maarpeet with her. The respondent no.2 also came to know about obscene activity of the revisionist. She was compelled to leave her matrimonial house and she has been staying separately from the revisionist. She is not able to maintain herself, whereas, the revisionist earns Rs.50,000/- per month.

4. In his objection, the revisionist has denied the allegations. In fact, according to the revisionist, the respondent no.2 misrepresented about her divorce from her earlier husband. They stayed together. When the revisionist demanded the divorce paper of respondent no.2 from her earlier husband, the respondent no.2 levelled false allegations against him. An application for interim maintenance was filed, which has been allowed by the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law. He would submit that the respondent no.2 has not divorced from her earlier husband, therefore, she is not legally wedded wife of the revisionist. He admits that the revisionist is ready and willing to pay interim maintenance to a son born due to relationship between the revisionist and the respondent no.2.

6. It is admitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist and the respondent no.2 stayed together since, 2008 and a child was born from their relationship. What is being argued is that the respondent no.2 had not divorced from earlier husband, therefore, their marriage is not lawful.

7. The court by the impugned order has not finally adjudicated the rights and liabilities of parties. What is decided is the application for interim maintenance, so that a wife in need may continue to the litigation and get maintenance. She may not be left in a condition of destitute. The respondent no.2 in her application under Section 125 of the Code has categorically stated that she was earlier married and had divorced and she also had a child born from her first marriage. The respondent no.2 further states that after her divorce from her first marriage, she and the revisionist were married.

8. According to the revisionist, when he demanded divorce paper from the respondent no.2, she levelled false allegations against him. Whether the marriage of the revisionist and the respondent no.2 is lawful or not, it has yet to be ascertained. As stated, the respondent no.2 has a positive assertion that she is a divorcee having lawful divorce from her husband.

9. It is undisputed that both the revisionist and the respondent no.2 stayed together since 2008 and a child was born from their relationship. Final adjudication with regard to the marriage between the revisionist and the respondent no.2 may only be done once parties are permitted to lead evidence in support of their claims. That stage has yet to come. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is of the view that the court below has rightly awarded maintenance to the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed at