2026:UHC:2348 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/570/2024 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Hitesh Chandra Sanwal, learned counsel, holding brief of Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Yesterday, both the parties were directed to appear before the Counsellor, who submits it’s report. 4. On perusal of the Counsellor’s report, it appears that respondent wife wants to settle the dispute with the husband to restore their marriage but revisionist husband is not agreeable for this and revisionist husband has filed a case in Thane Court seeking declaration of their marriage to be null and void, which is still pending. 5. Counsellor’s report reveals that as per direction of the spiritual Guru, ring ceremony was celebrated in November, 2019 in the residence of the revisionist and thereafter, on the direction of the spiritual Guru, both of them married on 02.05.2021 in Satsang Ashram. They belong to same community, however, there is no child from their marriage. They lived together upto March, 2023 for 9 months but now, after differences, respondent wife is residing in her maternal house. 6. Revisionist is denying this marriage since the marriage was not performed as per Hindu rituals and he also submitted that they have never intimated and refuses any relation with his wife. 7. On the other hand, respondent wife submits that marriage was solemnized after completing all rituals and they enjoyed married life, as husband and wife. 8. Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court, on the application of the respondent wife, the case filed by the revisionist – husband in Thane Court has now been transferred to Kashipur Court. 9. The instant revision has been preferred by the revisionist husband against the order of Family Court dated 03.04.2024 passed in Criminal Case No. 358 of 2023 (Suman Sharma Vs. Jay Kumar Upadhyay) granting interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent wife. 10. On the previous date, taking into consideration that dispute in between both of them appears to matrimonial one, they were directed to appear before the Counsellor so that the dispute may be settled amicably but the Counsellor’s 2026:UHC:2348 report reveals that there is no hope of any settlement. 11. Since the revisionist filed a petition for seeking declaration of their marriage to be null and void, therefore, in such an eventuality, till such time matter is decided finally the revisionist is under legal obligation to maintain his wife. 12. Revisionist is present in the Court and he submits that his monthly salary is Rs. 1,00,000/-. 13. In view of the discussions as above, since husband revisionist is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per month, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court whereby interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month was fixed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed and the stay order passed by the Coordinate Bench is vacated. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent has apprised to this Court that revisionist has not paid any single penny till date, since there was stay order. 15. Since now the instant criminal revision is dismissed, stay order has been vacated, revisionist undertakes that he will clear the entire arrears within three months from today and thereafter, shall continue to pay the interim maintenance, as granted by the Judge, Family Court, Kashipur. 16. The Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar is also directed to decide the pending proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. positively within three months without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 17. No order as to costs. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 02.04.2026 SKS