Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the respondent no. 2 without any rhyme or reason is residing separately and not residing with the revisionist, therefore, the revisionist had filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was allowed ex-parte by means of the judgment and order dated 24.12.2024 passed in Regular Suit No. 332 of 2024; Rohit Singh vs. Smt. Shivani Singh @ Divya Singh by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 8, Lucknow holding that it has been proved that the respondent no. 2 has withdrawn herself from the companionship. He further submits that the said order was brought on record in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC instituted by the respondent no. 2 in Case No. 1452 of 2023; Smt. Divya Singh vs. Rohit Singh and disclosed in paragraph 9 of the objection against the application for interim maintenance. He next submits that though the objection and the order passed in application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been referred but it has not been considered, whereas no wife is entitled to receive the allowance for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding(s) from the husband,

¶10

if she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient cause. Therefore, the impugned order of interim maintenance dated 16.06.2025 passed in the aforesaid case is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

¶11

Learned AGA, though opposed the prayer of the revisionist, but he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is apparent that in the exparte decree passed by the Family Court in Regular Suit No. 332 of 2024 (Supra) on the application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the revisionist, it has been held that the revisionist has repeatedly tried to bring the respondent no. 2 to live with him but she without any sufficient reason has withdrawn herself from the companionship of the revisionist. The said fact has been disclosed in the objection filed by the revisionist against the application for interim maintenance. It has been referred in the impugned order that an order has been passed in proceedings under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, but it has not been considered by the concerned Family Court, while passing the impugned order dated 16.06.2025, whereas in view of the statutory provision made under Section 125(4) CrPC, a wife, who without sufficient reason, refuses to live with husband is not entitled for maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding(s). However, it has to be considered by the Family Court first, which has not been considered by the Family Court concerned. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the revisionist to move an application before the Family Court concerned for recall of the order dated 16.06.2025 on the ground that the aforesaid objections have not properly been considered by the concerned court. Therefore, the

¶13

impugned order may be recalled and thereafter a fresh order may be passed after affording opportunity to the parties and considering above in accordance with law.

¶14

In view of the order proposed to be passed, the notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with.

¶15

The revision is disposed of with liberty to the revisionist to move application for recall of the order dated 16.06.2025 before the court concerned pointing out above.

¶16

In case, any such application is moved within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the concerned Family Court expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶17

In case, the application is moved within a period of two weeks from today before the Family Court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist in pursuance of the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 till the disposal of the application moved by the revisionist.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Raj

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishnu Gopal Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pramod Kumar Alias Pramod Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Shiv Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Randeep Yadav @ Randeep Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Geeta Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Tauheed Ahmad Shah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another