IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI MISC. PETITION No. 3812 of 2025 JITENDRA Versus SMT. SITA Appearance:

Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Tulsi Ram Raghuwanshi, learned counsel for the respondent.

Heard on : 10.10.2025 Pronounced on : 19.11.2025 ORDER This miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2025, passed in HMA No.1781/2015 by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Indore whereby the learned Family Court has allowed the application of respondent filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “HMA, 1955”) and awarded maintenance in favour of respondent/wife to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- as monthly maintenance from the date of filing of application, Rs. 10,000/- as suit/case expenses and Rs.500/- on each hearing for appearance of respondent.

2. The facts in brief are that, the petitioner filed a case under Section

5 and 11 of HMA, 1955 for declaration of Void Marriage before Principal Family Court Judge Indore District-Indore in the year 2022. Notice was issued to the respondent and respondent filed her reply before the Court in the year 2023. Learned Family Court framed the issues for determination. In between respondent filed an application under Section 24 of HMA, 1955, but she has not disclosed the actual facts that the respondent herself filed an application under Section 9 HMA before Family Court Tikamgarh Bearing No. RCSHM /137/2022 which was dismissed on 31.07.2024.

3. Further, similarly respondent did not mention in her application under Section 24 of HMA, 1955 that she has filed Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of maintenance, which was also decided by the Court after completing all Evidences and proper adjudication of the case MICR 340/2022 Sita Yadav vs. Jitendra Yadav. Respondent knowingly and willingly suppressed the actual facts of the case and not disclosed the two cases decided against her and not accepted her wife of Petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the aspect that in the orders passed in MJCR No. 340/2022 and RCSHM No. 137/2022, the Court did not accept the respondent as wife of petitioner. The petitioner filed the case in the year 2022 and still waiting for his cross-examination. Counsel for the respondent always seeking time on each date for cross examination. He has also contended that in para 61 of MJCR 340/2022, Learned Judge has given his findings that after considering the evidences that the petitioner/respondent Sita Yadav is not legally wedded wife of Jitendra Yadav/respondent.

Therefore, learned counsel has prayed to set aside the impugned order and petition may kindly be allowed.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Family Court, after considering all legal and factual matrix of the case allowed the application of respondent. Hence, the present petition is liable to be set aside.

6. In view of the rival submissions, I have gone through the record.

Now, the crux of the case is as to whether respondent is entitled to get maintenance from her second husband /petitioner.

7. At this juncture, the relevant part of Section 125 of Cr.P.C is worth referring here under:-

125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain:-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, 8. Section 24 of HMA, 19