SONU Vs. SHAMMI MENDIRATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision is filed under Sec. 19(4) of Family Court Act against the order dtd. 9/2/2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) in MJCR Case No. 321 of 2018 whereby, the application filed by petitioner for interim maintenance has been dismissed.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that marriage of petitioner -Smt. Sonu and respondent - Shammi Mendiratta was solemnized on 29/11/2017 as per Hindu rituals. As per allegations of petitioner, the marriage was solemnized by hiding the fact that the respondent is impotent. Petitioner was subjected to cruelty by respondent and his family members and was thrown out of their house. Therefore, she started living separately. The petitioner filed the petition u/S.12 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce and the decree of divorce was granted in favour of petitioner by learned Family Court on 31/3/2022. The petitioner has filed an application for maintenance against the respondent which was registered as MJCR Case No.321 of 2018. During the pendency of that case, an application for interim maintenance was filed but the said application was dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, the present revision is filed.

(3.) Petitioner argued that the order impugned is perverse, illegal and against the settled principles of law. It is further argued that after the marriage, it came to knowledge of petitioner that huge fraud was committed with her by respondent and his family members that the respondent is impotent and also not mentally stable and his serious problem of shivering in his right hand is directly related to impotency. It is further argued that in order to conceal the impotency from society, her in-laws forced her to make unethical relationship with the younger brother of respondent and when petitioner opposed, they demanded dowry and ousted her from her matrimonial house just after 28 days of marriage. It is further argued that respondent and his relatives did not return streedhan of petitioner. Further argument is that it is settled principles of law that even after annulment of marriage, wife is entitled to get maintenance as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, however, learned Family Court ignored the law and passed the impugned order merely on the ground that the marriage of petitioner and respondent has been declared null and void. It is further argued that the learned Family Court has ignored the fact that respondent had concealed many details in his affidavit filed in MJCR No.321/2018 u/S.125 of Cr.P.C. ignoring the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. [(2021) 2 SCC 324]. It is further argued that learned Family Court ignored the income of Rs.27,000.00 p.m. of respondent while the petitioner is completely dependent on respondent for her livelihood. The petitioner is not pursuing her Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy) anymore and not doing any job. In these circumstances, impugned order be set-aside and respondent be directed to pay interim maintenance to the petitioner from the date of filing the MJCR No.321/2018.