Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivam Singh Rajawat vs Smt. Shruti Tomar on 24 March, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
Bench: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR No. 2060 of 2021
(SHIVAM SINGH RAJAWAT Vs SMT. SHRUTI TOMAR)
Dated : 24-03-2022
Shri S.K.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri P.S.Bhadoria, learned counsel for the respondent.
Petitioner has filed this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Morena in Case No.17/2020 by which the application of the respondent-wife for interim maintenance has been allowed and the petitioner is ordered to pay Rs.5000/- per month as interim maintenance.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondents are husband and wife. On 18.4.2018 marriage was solemnized between them. Thereafter, dispute arose and they started living separately. Respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.for interim maintenance which was allowed vide impugned order and interim maintenance was ordered.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. This revision has been filed on the ground that marriage between the parties is void abinitio. In this situation, respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. The petitioner is not having any source of income, despite this the learned Family Court passed the order regarding interim maintenance.
2
5. In support of her contentions, respondent-wife has filed an affidavit. Counsel for the petitioner has also filed a counter affidavit to rebut her contentions.
6. It is an admitted position that marriage was solemnized on 18.4.2018. It is settled position of law that the wife can claim interim maintenance to meet out the routine expenses. Such interim maintenance may also cover expenses incurred towards medical treatment. Obligation of the husband to pay such expenses cannot be deferred till final adjudication of the suit.
7. So far as the question of validity of marriage is concerned, petitioner is free to file appropriate proceedings for declaring marriage void abinitio, but till today there is nothing on record which shows that the marriage between petitioner and respondent is abinitio void. The petitioner is husband of the respondent. The awarded interim maintenance appears to be appropriate and cannot be said to be excessive, hence no interference is warranted in the impugned order. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
(Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
vv Judge
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2022.03.26
15:20:20
+05'30'