HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.651 of 2024 Nitesh Sharma ………Revisionist Versus Sakshi Kapoor alias Sakshi Sharma ………Respondent Mr. Shankar Agarwal, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Deepak Petshali, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Akshay Latwal, Advocate for the respondent appeared through video conferencing. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) This revision is filed against the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by Additional Family Judge, Dehradun in Case No.441 of 2019, Sakshi vs. Nitesh, whereby learned Judge has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.20,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent from the date of filing of the application. 2. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the learned Additional Family Judge has committed a grave irregularity in granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. ignoring the fact that an application under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”) is pending between the parties for annulment of marriage. He submits that the respondent was already married at the time of marriage between the parties. Therefore, as per Section 5 (1) of the Act she was barred from solemnizing a marriage. He further submits that since the respondent was not a legally wedded wife of the revisionist, therefore, the learned Additional Family Judge could not have passed the order of interim maintenance. 1 3. The learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the revision petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the parties are in a marital relation until and unless the decree of annulment has been passed under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, as no such decree has been passed as of now, the respondent is a legally wedded wife of the revisionist. 5. In such view of the matter, present revision is dismissed as it is misconceived and the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun has committed no irregularity in passing the impugned order. But the interest of justice is met if it is directed to decide the Case No.441 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from today. The revisionist is directed to continue paying the amount of maintenance. 6. Interim order dated 24.09.2024 is vacated. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 23.07.2025 Ravi 2