ANJU BHATIA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist no.1, is the wife of respondent no.2, whose marriage is shown to have been solemnized in accordance with Hindu Rights and Rituals on 06.05.2011, as a consequence of the aforesaid matrimony, a son was born, named as Master Riyarth, who is revisionist no.2 in the present criminal revision. Revisionist case is that she was maltreated by respondent no.2, as he in order to avoid discharge of his matrimonial obligations had left for Mumbai, leaving revisionist at Dehradun. Hence, she took a plea of desertion at the hands of respondent no.2. There had been a checkered history of litigation between the parties to the criminal revision, which was emanating also from an institution of a suit by respondent no.2 under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, as Case No.288 of 2013 herein for seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage. During the pendency of the said suit for dissolution of marriage filed by respondent no.2 herein, the revisionist has filed an application invoking the provisions contained under Order 8 Rule 6(A) by filing a counter claim, for grant of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by invoking provisions contained under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The said proceedings before the court below, ultimately culminated by the judgment dated 24.07.2015, as rendered by the court below. As a consequence thereto, by the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2015 the marriage between the revisionist no.1 and respondent no.2 dated 06.05.2011 was dissolved. Simultaneously, the application under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act too filed for the custody of the minor son, was also dismissed by the trial court.

(2.) Even the counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the revisionist/wife was rejected by the learned trial court. In the proceedings under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the revisionist/wife for herself as well as for her son, the Family Court thus held that a sum of Rs.15,000/- would be payable to by Respondent no.2 to the Revisionist/wife as a maintenance, which the revisionist considered it to be too less so as to enable herself to maintain herself. Hence, she has drawn the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and claimed a maintenance @ of Rs.50,000/- per month for herself and Rs.20,000/- as maintenance for her son. In order to substantiate her claim she had submitted that as her husband is engaged as Mechanical Engineer in Jet Airways and his salary was shown to be of about Rs.1,40,000/-per month. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid judgments, the revisionist/wife herein had filed the following appeals:-

(3.) The series of above litigation happens to be the past litigation, which also stood decided by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 21.09.2017 and it has been orally argued by the counsel for the revisionist that as against the said judgment, an SLP being SLP No.2303-2304 of 2018, Anju Bhatia vs. Vivek Bhatia is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in which notices have been issued on 29.01.2018 on delay condonation. The pendency of an SLP against the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court will not mitigate the effect of judgment and decree of dissolving the marriage, as it has been rendered by the trial court on 24.07.2015 and affirmed in FA No.82 of 2015 vide judgment dated 21.09.2017.