DHANANJAY MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of sufficient service of notice.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.02.2014 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.779/2009, whereby the learned court below, while partly allowing the application for interim maintenance, has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/ - per month to the opposite party no.2, during the pendency of the case.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was married to the opposite party no.2 in the year 2006 and a female child was also born out of the aforesaid wedlock. However, the opposite party no.2 had always been pressuring the petitioner to live separately. It was on account of this insistence by the opposite party no.2 that the relations between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 became strained and consequently on 28.07.2007, the opposite party no.2 left the company of the petitioner and started living in her parental home. The opposite party no.2 filed a suit for divorce, which was registered as R.S. No.1716/2008 and on being served with the notices, the petitioner filed his written statement on 20.02.2009. However, on 22.02.2009, the petitioner as well as the opposite party no.2 entered into a compromise and on the basis of written compromise, the learned Family Court passed the decree of divorce. It was agreed upon between the parties that the parties would live separately independently and it was also agreed that both the parties would be free to perform re -marriage. The opposite party no.2 also agreed not to claim any maintenance in future. The aforesaid decree passed on the basis of compromise became final. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of the compromise, the criminal case pending against the opposite party no.2, under Sections 498A, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, was also decided and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. It was in the year 2009, that the opposite party no.2 again moved an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, in which, it was alleged by her that the aforesaid compromise was got signed by the petitioner fraudulently. The petitioner submitted his written objections, but the learned court below without considering the fact that the parties have already separated by means of decree passed on the basis of compromise, passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/ - per month, as interim maintenance.