KASHINATH NAIK Vs. STATE OF GOA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) THE brief facts are that the respondent no. 2 has filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., for short) against the petitioner herein, being Maintenance Application No. 2/2013/A, which is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ponda, Goa. The Second respondent is claiming maintenance of Rs.5,000/ - per month from the petitioner. According to the second respondent, she was married with the petitioner on 22/01/2007. After marriage, she had gone to reside with the petitioner at Raigini, Bandora, Ponda, Goa. Shortly thereafter, the marriage ran into rough weather and the parties started staying separately. It appears that the petitioner had filed a Matrimonial Petition No. 9/2009/A against the second respondent in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Ponda for a decree for annulment of marriage and for declaring the marriage as nullity. It appears that the said petition has been decreed vide judgment and order dated 26/02/2013 and marriage between the parties (registered in the office of Civil Registrar at Ponda against entry No. 66/2007) has been annulled and declared as null and void. It is undisputed that the second respondent has unsuccessfully challenged the said judgment and decree before the learned District Judge. Thus, the said decree of annulment of marriage has attained finality. Be that as it may, the second respondent, as stated earlier, had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 02/03/2013. The second respondent also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance therein, claiming a maintenance of Rs.5,000/ - per month, pending disposal of the application. It appears that the petitioner filed a reply to the application opposing the same. It was, inter alia, contended that there was misrepresentation by the second respondent, as to her date of birth and the marriage was null and void and was so declared in the Matrimonial Petition No. 9/2009/A. The petitioner also denied all the adverse allegations, including about his earning Rs.15,000/ - per month. It was contended that the second respondent is not entitled to maintenance as claimed.