Partly allowed

Afzal Alias Sonu v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC11 Jul 2019CRLR/186/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revision against an interim maintenance order of Rs. 10,000/month was dismissed. The court held that a notarized affidavit cannot substitute statutory divorce proceedings under Section 13B. The romantic dispute regarding the affidavit's validity was irrelevant to the interim order, and the Family Court was directed to decide the principal application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/month continues; Family Court directed to decide principal Section 125 application within three months.

Afzal Alias Sonu Vs State of Uttarakhand — Maintenance and Alimony | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

CRLR No. 186 of 2019

¶2

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

¶3

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the revisionist.

¶4

Mr. Siddharth Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶5

Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2. The Miscellaneous Application No. 8878/2019 is allowed. Counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 is taken on record.

¶6

A very peculiar situation has arisen in this case where the revisionist-husband has questioned the propriety of the order dated 25.03.2019, as rendered by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, by virtue of which he has awarded a maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month as an interim maintenance to respondent No. 2 to be paid during the pendency of the principal proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which has been registered as Case No. 157 of 2018, Smt. Reshma v. Afzal @ Sonu.

¶7

As far as the impugned order is concerned, it has been passed while considering the application for grant of an interim maintenance being paper No. 5B. Since it is only an arrangement which is made during pendency of the principal case, it will not attain finality; but the argument which has been extended by the learned counsel for the revisionist is to the effect that respondent-wife would not be entitled for any maintenance on the ground that they have settled their scores and the matrimony between them had been dissolved by virtue of a notarized affidavit. He argues that as a consequence of the said notarized affidavit, he has already remitted a handsome amount to respondentwife.

¶8

But, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that this notarized affidavit dissolving the marriage was sought to be brought on record in the proceedings before the Court below by the husband by virtue of an application preferred by the revisionist which has been rejected and the Court has denied to take the said document on record to be read in evidence. In such an eventuality, when the application of the revisionist has been rejected the argument pertaining to the unanimous dissolution of marriage cannot be permitted to be taken on record at the behest of the argument as extended by the learned counsel for the revisionist now at this stage.

¶9

Even otherwise also, this Court is of the considered view that once a statute contemplates a provision under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by consent that means that the dissolution has to be taken place in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the statute and not by way of a notarized affidavit, which cannot be read in evidence as a substitute to the principle proceedings.

¶10

In such circumstances, the argument as extended, in order to avoid payment of the interim maintenance as granted by the learned Family Court to respondent-wife is not acceptable and is turned down. But having considered the fact that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which has been preferred by the respondent-wife on 17.07.2018 is still pending consideration on merits for sufficient long time which otherwise ought to have been decided at the earliest for the reason that it relates to a matrimonial disputes between the parties, this revision is being disposed of with direction to the learned Family Court to decide the principal application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., itself on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made by this Court.

¶11

The learned Family Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar is requested to decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. within a period of three months from today and during the intervening period, the revisionist will continue to remit the maintenance, which has been awarded by the learned Family Court while considering the interim application of Respondent No.2 at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month, the amount has to be paid by 10^th of each month.

¶12

Subject to the above observations, the revision will stand disposed of.

¶13

The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶14

Mahinder/

Afzal Alias Sonu v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afzal Alias Sonu v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Salma Yusuf and Another Vs Smt Usha Tankha

Kapil Khetarpal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dhum Singh Pundir Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Kunal Agarwal Vs Smt. Subhra Gupta

Pahel Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vishal Mani Uniyal Vs Smt Kushla Devi