HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37968 of 2024 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Girish Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 12.8.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family, Court, Kanpur Dehat in Case No.970 of 2023 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., (Preeti Vs. Vivek Kaushal). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with opposite party No.2 on 06.03.2023 at Hotel Moti Mahal Deluxe, Ashiyana, Lucknow, without any dowry. It is submitted that this is the second marriage of both the applicant as well as opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that opposite party No.2 instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance and also moved an application for interim maintenance. The applicant filed his objection/reply to the said application. Thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the applicant that opposite party No.2 had earlier filed a divorce petition along with an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.2 crores against her previous husband, Mr. Alok Dixit, before the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. It is submitted that the said proceedings were decided by a common judgment and order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the petition filed by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Girish Singh, G.A. Vivek Kaushal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) opposite party No.2 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was rejected, the counter-claim filed by her previous husband was allowed, and a decree for dissolution of marriage was passed. It is further submitted that the claim for permanent alimony was partly allowed and a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was awarded to opposite party No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that against the aforesaid judgment and decree, opposite party No.2 filed First Appeal No. 26 of 2020 before this Court, which has been admitted and is still pending for disposal. It is, therefore, contended that the previous marriage of opposite party No.2 has not attained finality of dissolution and, as such, she cannot be said to be the legally wedded wife of the applicant. It is also submitted that opposite party No.2 concealed the aforesaid material facts while instituting proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that opposite party No.2 is a highly educated lady and is earning approximately Rs.1,80,000/- per month, but the learned Family Court failed to consider the said aspect while allowing the application for interim maintenance and directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. It is, thus, argued that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, in an arbitrary and mechanical manner, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is further prayed that the amount of interim maintenance already paid by the applicant to opposite party No.2 may be adjusted towards the final amount of maintenance. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant. It is contended that the marriage of opposite party No.2 was solemnized with the applicant and, thereafter, the applicant started neglecting, harassing and torturing her on account of additional demand of dowry. It is further contended that, on account of such harassment and neglect, opposite party No.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance. It is submitted that the applicant is employed in a multinational company and is earning approximately Rs.3 lakhs per month. It is thus argued that the learned Family Court has rightly allowed the application for interim maintenance and has committed no illegality in passing the impugned order. A482 No. 37968 of 2024 2 6. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record. 7. It is an admitted position between the parties that the present marriage is the second marriage of both the applicant and opposite party No.2. It also transpires from the record that opposite party No.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance and, during pendency of the said proceedings, also moved an application for interim maintenance, which has been allowed by the learned Family Court, directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to opposite party No.2. The learned Family Court, while deciding the application for interim maintenance, recorded a finding that the applicant failed to bring on record any cogent material to establish the income of opposite party No.2, as alleged by him. So far as the submission regarding the previous marriage of opposite party No.2 and pendency of the first appeal is concerned, the same involves disputed questions of fact and law, which may be considered by the learned Family Court at the stage of final disposal of proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 8. It is well settled that an able-bodied husband is presumed to be capable of earning sufficient means to maintain his wife. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find any such manifest illegality, perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 10 However, it is provided that the amount of interim maintenance, if already paid by the applicant to opposite party No.2, shall be adjusted towards the final amount of maintenance, if any. March 25, 2026 Md Faisal A482 No. 37968 of 2024 3 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad