Ashish Anuragi v. Smt. Ritu Verma), under Section

1. Heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vaibhav Shandilya, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant revision petition has been filed by the revisionist being aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, in Case No. 1212 of 2024 (Ashish Anuragi vs. Smt. Ritu Verma), under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) BNSS, whereby both the applications under Section 126(2) was allowed, but the condition was imposed to pay the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month, as per the order of interim maintenance passed on 04.05.2024 in the said case.

3. During the pendency of the instant petition, the petitioner has also been permitted to challenge the subsequent order dated 18.01.2025, whereby the said order dated 08.11.2024 was stated to have been lapsed due to non-compliance of the condition of deposit imposed by the learned trial court.

4. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the revisionist and 2 CRLR No. 6542 of 2024 Respondent No. 2 were married on 24.06.2023, as per the Hindu rites and customs. Thereupon, it is alleged by the Respondent No. 2 that she was thrown out of the matrimonial house on 02.10.2023. Subsequent thereto, the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by Respondent No.2 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi. After service of notice, the revisionist herein appeared before the trial court concerned and filed his reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on

26.04.2024. In the meantime, an application for interim maintenance was also filed by the Respondent No. 2, which was allowed vide order dated

04.05.2024, whereby the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month to the Respondent No. 2 herein.

5. During the pendency of the said petition, subsequent thereto, since the revisionist could not appear on 20.06.2024, and the matter was proceeded ex-parte, and on 29.06.2024, the Respondent No. 2 led ex-parte evidence and thereupon, on 10.07.2024, the final ex-parte order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.35,000/- was passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court. Subsequent thereto, a recall application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) BNSS, was filed by the revisionist herein, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 08.11.2024, imposing a condition of deposit of interim maintenance during the pendency of the said case. However, the said order dated 08.11.2024 was challenged by the revisionist herein before this Court in the instant petition and during the pendency of the instant petition a further order of 18.01.2025 was passed by the trial court, whereby, due to non-deposit of the interim maintenance, the said order dated 08.11.2024 was declared to have been set-aside in terms of the order dated 08.11.2024.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that in his reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., he has raised the issue with regard to the eligibility of the respondent no.2 with regard to the maintenance and without adverting to the aforesaid contentions raised by the revisionist, the interim order of maintenance was passed. Subsequent thereto, since the F.I.R. was also lodged by the respondent no.2, he could not appear before the Family Court.

7. In the instant proceedings, the Family Court has proceeded in a hurried 3 CRLR No. 6542 of 2024 manner and has passed an ex-parte order and thereafter passed the final ex-parte order against the revisionist herein.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that he has not been heard on merits of the case. He further submits that the revisionist is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount of interim maintenance, provided the same is not disbursed to the Respondent No.2 until the final disposal of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, and he undertakes to continue to pay the amount of interim maintenance until the pendency of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial court concerned. He has already contended that due to the fact that the respondent no.2 is living in adultery, she is not entitled to any maintenance.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the sole intention of the revisionist is to delay the proceedings of maintenance. The trial court has given enough opportunity to the revisionist. The allegations of adultery have been leveled without any foundational evidence, the contention of the revisionist is baseless and the same cannot be relied upon for denying the interim maintenance to the respondent no.2.

10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that respondent no.2 does not have any source of income and is suffering everyday for want of interim maintenance. Therefore, he submits that some amount of interim maintenance at least be disbursed to the petitioner so that she can maintain the litigation expenses as well as for her survival.

11. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the perusal of the record it appears that the order dated 04.05.2024, which granted interim maintenance to the respondent no.2, was passed after hearing the parties and in the said order, the revisionist has not raised any objection with regard the maintainability of interim maintenance application and the said order has not even been challenged by the revisionist in any court. However, from the perusal of the order- sheet of the Family Court, it appears that ex-parte proceedings were 4 CRLR No. 6542 of 2024 initiated against the revisionist due to only one absence, and subsequently, a final ex-parte order of maintenance was passed in a hurried manner.

12. In view thereof, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated

08.11.2024, whereby the condition of payment of interim maintenance was imposed by the trial court while restoring the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, since the revisionist has approached this Court well within time and no interim order could be passed, the trial court has proceeded to pass order dated 18.01.2025, for want of any interim order in the instant case.

13. From the perusal of the order-sheet of this Court, it appears that the instant matter was listed for the first time on 15.01.2025 and on the request of learned counsel for the respondent no.2, the matter was adjourned and on the next date of listing, i.e., 27.01.2025, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 was absent and in the meantime, the order dated

18.01.2025 was passed by the trial court and vide order dated 14.02.2025, this Court has permitted the revisionist to challenge the said order. Thus, the order dated 18.01.2025 is hereby set aside. The Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being the Original Case No. 1217 of 2023 (Smt. Ritu Verma vs. Ashish Anuragi) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is hereby restored to its original number.

14. The revisionist shall deposit the entire arrears of interim maintenance as awarded vide order dated 04.05.2024 and re-affirmed vide order dated

08.11.2024 within one month from today and shall continue to pay the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month during the pendency of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, it is provided that out of the said amount of arrears of maintenance, an amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month shall be disbursed to the opposite party no.2 forthwith and the remaining amount shall be kept in deposit with the Family Court concerned in an interest bearing account, which will be subject to the final outcome of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. From, the monthly deposit of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- by the revisionist, Rs. 10,000/- per month shall be disbursed every month to respondent no.2 and remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- shall be kept in deposit and shall be payable as per the final 5 CRLR No. 6542 of 2024 orders passed in applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Principal Judge of the Family Court is directed to decide the main application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. Any other consequential subsequent orders passed in the instant case are hereby set aside.

16. With the aforesaid observation, the instant application is disposed of. September 8, 2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vaibhav Shandilya, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant revision petition has been filed by the revisionist being aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, in Case No. 1212 of 2024 (Ashish Anuragi vs. Smt. Ritu Verma), under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) BNSS, whereby both the applications under Section 126(2) was allowed, but the condition was imposed to pay the arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month, as per the order of interim maintenance passed on 04.05.2024 in the said case.

3. During the pendency of the instant petition, the petitioner has also been permitted to challenge the subsequent order dated 18.01.2025, whereby the said order dated 08.11.2024 was stated to have been lapsed due to non-compliance of the condition of deposit imposed by the learned trial court.

4. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the revisionist and 2 CRLR No. 6542 of 2024 Respondent No. 2 were married on 24.06.2023, as per the Hindu rites and customs. Thereupon, it is alleged by the Respondent No. 2 that she was thrown out of the matrimonial house on 02.10.2023. Subsequent thereto, the instant application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by Respondent No.2 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi. After service of notice, the revisionist herein appeared before the trial court concerned and filed his reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on

26.04.2024. In the meantime, an application for interim maintenance was also filed by the Respondent No. 2, which was allowed vide order dated

04.05.2024, whereby the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month to the Respondent No. 2 herein.

5. During the pendency of the said petition, subsequent thereto, since the revisionist could not appear on 20.06.2024, and the matter was proceeded ex-parte, and on 29.06.2024, the Respondent No. 2 led ex-parte evidence and thereupon, on 10.07.2024, the final ex-parte order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.35,000/- was passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court. Subsequent thereto, a recall application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C./145(2) BNSS, was filed by the revisionist herein, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 08.11.2024, imposing a condition of deposit of interim maintenance during the pendency of the said case. However, the said order dated 08.11.2024 was challenged by the revisionist herein before this Court in the instant petition and during the pendency of the instant petition a further order of 18.01.2025 was passed by the trial court, whereby, due to non-deposit of the interim maintenance, the said order dated 08.11.2024 was declared to have been set-aside in terms of the order dated 08.11.2024.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that in his reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., he has raised the issue with regard to the eligibility of the respondent no.2 with regard to the maintenance and without adverting to the aforesaid contentions raised by the revisionist, the interim order of maintenance was passed. Subsequent thereto, since the F.I.R. was also lodged by the respondent no.2, he could not appear before the Family Court.

7. In the instant proceedings, the Family Court has proceeded in a hurried 3 CRLR No. 6542 of 2024 manner and has passed an ex-parte order and thereafter passed the final ex-parte order against the revisionist herein.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that he has not been heard on merits of the case. He further submits that the revisionist is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount of interim maintenance, provided the same is not disbursed to the Respondent No.2 until the final disposal of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, and he undertakes to continue to pay the amount of interim maintenance until the pendency of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial court concerned. He has already contended that due to the fact that the respondent no.2 is living in adultery, she is not entitled to any maintenance.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the sole intention of the revisionist is to delay the proceedings of maintenance. The trial court has given enough opportunity to the revisionist. The allegations of adultery have been leveled without any foundational evidence, the contention of the revisionist is baseless and the same cannot be relied upon for denying the interim maintenance to the respondent no.2.

10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that respondent no.2 does not have any source of income and is suffering everyday for want of interim maintenance. Therefore, he submits that some amount of interim maintenance at least be disbursed to the petitioner so that she can maintain the litigation expenses as well as for her survival.

11. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the perusal of the record it appears that the order dated 04.05.2024, which granted interim maintenance to the respondent no.2, was passed after hearing the parties and in the said order, the revisionist has not raised any objection with regard the maintainability of interim maintenance application and the said order has not even been challenged by the revisionist in any court. However, from the perusal of the order- sheet of the Family Court, it appears that ex-parte proceedings were 4 CRLR No. 6542 of 2024 initiated against the revisionist due to only one absence, and subsequently, a final ex-parte order of maintenance was passed in a hurried manner.

12. In view thereof, this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated

08.11.2024, whereby the condition of payment of interim maintenance was imposed by the trial court while restoring the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, since the revisionist has approached this Court well within time and no interim order could be passed, the trial court has proceeded to pass order dated 18.01.2025, for want of any interim order in the instant case.

13. From the perusal of the order-sheet of this Court, it appears that the instant matter was listed for the first time on 15.01.2025 and on the request of learned counsel for the respondent no.2, the matter was adjourned and on the next date of listing, i.e., 27.01.2025, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 was absent and in the meantime, the order dated

18.01.2025 was passed by the trial court and vide order dated 14.02.2025, this Court has permitted the revisionist to challenge the said order. Thus, the order dated 18.01.2025 is hereby set aside. The Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being the Original Case No. 1217 of 2023 (Smt. Ritu Verma vs. Ashish Anuragi) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is hereby restored to its original number.

14. The revisionist shall deposit the entire arrears of interim maintenance as awarded vide order dated 04.05.2024 and re-affirmed vide order dated

08.11.2024 within one month from today and shall continue to pay the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per month during the pendency of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, it is provided that out of the said amount of arrears of maintenance, an amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month shall be disbursed to the opposite party no.2 forthwith and the remaining amount shall be kept in deposit with the Family Court concerned in an interest bearing account, which will be subject to the final outcome of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. From, the monthly deposit of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- by the revisionist, Rs. 10,000/- per month shall be disbursed every month to respondent no.2 and remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- shall be kept in deposit and shall be payable as per the final 5 CRLR No. 6542 of 2024 orders passed in applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Principal Judge of the Family Court is directed to decide the main application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. Any other consequential subsequent orders passed in the instant case are hereby set aside.

16. With the aforesaid observation, the instant application is disposed of. September 8, 2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad