Court No. - 68

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37856 of 2022

Applicant :- Shiv Narayan @ Shalu

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar,Mohd. Naushad

Siddiqui

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for

the State.

This petition has been filed by the applicant for quashing of the

impugned order dated 03.09.2022 in Maintenance Case No. 596

of 2020 (Smt. Sunita Prajapati Vs. Shiv Narayan), under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. passed by Additional Principal Judge,

Family Court, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar whereby the

application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed by allowing interim

maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date

of application.

Initially, Opposite party no.2 filed a case under Section 125

Cr.P.C. which was allowed by Principal Judge, Family Court,

Kanpur Nagar by awarding interim maintenance to the tune of

Rs.3,000/- per month. Thereafter, the applicant filed an

application supported with affidavit before the court below on

12.04.2022 contending that the applicant is cousin brother of

the opposite party no. 2 because the applicant's mother and

mother of opposite party no. 2 were real sister as per ancestral

pedigree of his family and pedigree of opposite party no.2.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that

opposite party no.2 has also filed an application before the

Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. III,

Kanpur Nagar stating therein that the applicant is cousin brother

of opposite party no.2. He further submits that opposite party

no.2 is not legally wedded wife of applicant.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the

court below has not applied its mind while passing the

impugned order. It is further contended by learned counsel for

the applicant that applicant is not in a position to give the

amount of interim maintenance as awarded by the court below.

It is further submitted that their marriage is not a valid marriage

and therefore no question arises for giving maintenance to the

opposite party no. 2.

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned

order and contended that the impugned order itself reflect that

marriage of the applicant and opposite party no.2 was

solemnized on 07.01.2020 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals

and marriage was registered on 14.01.2020, therefore, opposite

party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of applicant and the court

below has only granted interim maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to

maintain herself during the course of hearing on the application

filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C., which cannot be said to be excessive in

any circumstances of the case to meet both ends meal, and there

are no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the courts

below.

From the perusal of the record, it emerges that the matter is still

pending before the court below for final decision. The quashing

of the order passed by the court below would amount to denial

of justice to the opposite party no.2 who is the legally wedded

wife of the applicant and is grappling. The applicant has ample

opportunity to adduce materials before the court below in

corroboration of his submission and the court below will take

into account while passing the final order.

Having considered the rival submission advanced by the

learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., it emerges

that the matter is still sub-judice before the court below. The

applicant has come up before this Court challenging the order

of interim maintenance granted by the court below. Since the

matter is pending before the court below, the applicant will

have ample opportunity to adduce the material in support of his

claim. The applicant instead of paying the interim maintenance

to his legally wedded wife is trying to dilate the matter by the

process of law. This Court does not find any justifiabl