Dhan Singh vs Geeta

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

As per the facts, which have been brought on record, the marriage between the revisionist and the respondent was solemnized on 3rd October 2014, and out of the said wedlock, no children was born till the initiation of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was registered as Matrimonial Case No. 121 of 2017, Dhan Singh v. Smt. Geeta, which was instituted by the present revisionist before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Almora.

In the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was registered, as such it is claimed that the parties to the proceedings had entered into a settlement which was arrived at between the parties before the learned Judge Family Court and as a consequence to it, the proceedings under Section 9 was ultimately decided before the Lok Adalat on 22nd December 2017.

In the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which stood settled before the Lok Adalat on 22nd February 2017, the respondent herein had sought a monetary benefit and consequently in the Civil Case No. 121 of 2019, Dhan Singh v. Smt. Geeta, as decided under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the claim of the respondent for monetary benefit was rejected by an order dated 10th February 2018 and consequently, it was held out that since in pursuance to the settlement which has been arrived at between the parties, and since they have already instituted a proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, based on the settlement, and since they already exchanged all the Stri dhan which has been handed over to the respondent, hence the learned Family Court, Almora passed an order on 10th February 2018, thereby declining the claim based on the fact that as in the proceedings Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which has been decided by the Lok Adalat on 22nd February 2017, on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the Lok Adalat on 22nd February 2017, and the proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act by way of a Civil Matrimonial Case No. 35 of 2018, Dhan Singh v. Smt. Geeta, it has already been adjudicated by an order / judgement dated 11th May 2018, hence as per the findings recorded therein, it has been observed that all the amount payable to the respondent herein has been remitted by the revisionist-husband and no amount apart from the amount which has been mentioned in the settlement is due to be paid to respondent by the revisionist.

The orders dated 12th December 2017 and 10th February 2018, as rendered in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the judgement dated 11th May 2018 as rendered in the proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, as it has been informed by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the same has attained its finality and it has not been challenged by either of the parties before any superior Court.

Subsequent to the culmination of the aforesaid proceedings and despite of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the respondent is shown to have filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the learned Family Court, Almora, claiming for a maintenance @ Rs. 5500/- per month, as it was being paid to her at the stage when the proceedings under Section 9 was pending consideration and was not finally adjudicated. Since, ultimately as of now the interse rights amongst themselves stand crystalized by the judgement dated 11th May 2018, as rendered in the proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, as such any claim raised by the respondent-wife by filing an application under Section 125 CrPC for the grant of maintenance @ Rs. 5500/- per month was not maintainable as it would be a claim contrary to the concluded proceeds under Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has also settled the respective financial liabilities.

Hence, the revisionist had filed an application under Section 127 of the CrPC in order to such suspension of the direction for the remittance of an amount of Rs. 5500/- per month in the light of the judgement dated 11th May 2018, as rendered in a Matrimonial Case No.35 of 2018, Dhan Singh v. Smt. Geeta, as no amount would fallen to be due to be paid once a decree of dissolution of marriage has already been obtained by the parties to the proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Faced with the order, directing remittance of maintenance @ of Rs. 5500/-, the revisionist has filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been decided by the impugned order under challenge in the present revision on 14th June 2019, whereby the application preferred by the revisionist under Section 127 of Cr.PC was rejected. When this revision was entertained, it was admitted on 5th July 2019 and notice was issued to respondent No. 1, both by normal mode of service, as well as through registered A.D. and the revisionist was also directed to take steps to serve the respondent dasti.

There is an office report of 26th August 2019 showing thereof that in compliance of the order dated 5th July 2019 the learned CJM, Almora has already effected service on the respondent on 31st July 2019 and the respondent-wife has received the notice of the present revision personally; but despite of the said office report, she has not put in appearance to oppose the revision. While on the other hand, it is the case of the revisionist that in pursuance to the maintenance which has been granted in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. directing the revisionist to pay an amount of Rs. 5500/- per month as it was being paid during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent No. 2 has initiated the proceedings for the recovery of the said amount which according to the revisionist is contrary to the judgement and decree dated 11th May 2018. Because, after the final determination and settlement which was the foundation of the decree under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, no amount thereafter could have been claimed by respondent No. 2 by preferring of an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, because after the decree of dissolution of marriage, in fact, no matrimonial relationship survives and hence the provisions of Section 125 of CrPC will not be attracted as all issues including the issue of financial liabilities stood determined.

Even when despite of service of notice, respondent has not put in appearance, the revisionist has prayed for an interim order to the effect that the recovery in pursuance to the impugned order, directing the revisionist to pay maintenance @ Rs. 5500/- per month to the respondent is bad in the eyes of law and contrary to the judgement and decree dated 11th May 2018.

In these circumstances, any recovery which is now being sought to be made subsequent to the decision dated 11th May 2018 is directed to be kept in abeyance till the next date of listing.

The Stay Application (CRMA No. 1630 of 2019) stands disposed of accordingly.