Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8597 (UTT)

Puran Singh v. Hema Mehra

2026-01-03

Ravindra Maithani

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 121 of 2020, Smt. Hema Mehra Vs. Puran Singh, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), pending in the court of the Judge, Family Court, Haldwani, District Nainital. (“the case”). 2. The case is based on an application filed under Section 125 of the Code filed by the respondent seeking maintenance from the petitioner. According to the respondent, the parties were married on 12.12.2019. The petitioner was a widower having 13 years child from his first marriage and the respondent was also a widow at the time of their marriage. After a month of marriage, the relations became strained between them. The respondent was meted out with cruelty. She was forced to abort, to which, she denied; she was beaten up; she was misbehaved; without the consent of the respondent, her foetus was aborted and finally, the petitioner has neglected to maintain the respondent. She is not able to maintain herself. The respondent sought maintenance. Based on which, proceedings of the case has been instituted. 3. The petitioner filed objection in the case. The proceedings quashed mainly on the ground that the respondent is living in adultery with one Madan Bohra, against whom, respondent had filed FIR No. 0169 of 2018 at Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital under Section 376 IPC, admitting that under the pretext of marriage, she was raped by Madan Bohra. FIR was lodged on 25.11.2018. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is not maintainable itself. The respondent is living in adultery and she is not entitled to any maintenance. It is argued that on 25.11.2018, the respondent had filed an FIR against one Madan Bohra under Section 376 IPC, in which charge sheet was submitted. The charge sheet was challenged by one Madan Bohra in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1625 of 2019, Madan Bohra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another (“the 482 case”). The 482 case was decided on 09.09.2022. It is argued that in the 482 case the respondent had filed an affidavit with a following averments that are quote in para 2 of the judgment passed in the 482 case:- “3. That in fact the applicant and deponent were in relation and the aforesaid was lodged due to some misunderstanding between the parties. 4. It is argued that in the 482 case the respondent had filed an affidavit with a following averments that are quote in para 2 of the judgment passed in the 482 case:- “3. That in fact the applicant and deponent were in relation and the aforesaid was lodged due to some misunderstanding between the parties. 4. That it is submitted that the deponent’s mother is passed away very recently and moreover the deponent has not concern with the applicant. The deponent is living her life freely and she is not interested in the prosecution of applicant.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in 482 case, the respondent had filed affidavit. It shows that she was in relationship with Madan Bohra, when 482 case was decided. It is established case of living in adultery. Therefore, there is no reason that the respondent may get any maintenance. Accordingly, the continuance of maintenance case is abuse of process of law and it deserved to be dismissed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the arguments that has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner are misconceived. He would submit that the 482 case, is based on the FIR, which was lodged by the respondent on 25.11.2018, whereas, she married with the petitioner on 12.12.2019. There is no iota of evidence to suggest that after marriage with the petitioner, the respondent had ever been in relationship with any person, including Madan Bohra. 7. The scope of Section 482 of the Code is much wide, but much guided by the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. One of the earlier decision in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Hon’ble Supreme Court has illustratively laid down the circumstances, under which this jurisdiction may be exercised. In paras 102 and 103 of the judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “102. One of the earlier decision in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Hon’ble Supreme Court has illustratively laid down the circumstances, under which this jurisdiction may be exercised. In paras 102 and 103 of the judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 8. Admittedly, the respondent had filed an FIR against one Madan Bohra under Section 376 IPC on 25.11.2018, wherein, it was recorded that under the pretext of marriage, Madan Bohra established physical relations with the respondent on multiple occasions and thereafter, he demanded money. It is also admitted that based on the FIR that was lodged by the respondent, charge sheet was submitted which was challenged in 482 case by Madan Bohra. In that proceedings, on behalf of the respondent an affidavit was filed and admitted that she and Madan Bohra were in relationship and FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding between the parties. It also records that, in fact, the respondent had no concern with Madan Bohra. She is living her life freely and she is not interested to process that matter. Based on this averment, it cannot be said that after marriage, on 12.12.2019, the respondent was living in adultery with any person. It also records that, in fact, the respondent had no concern with Madan Bohra. She is living her life freely and she is not interested to process that matter. Based on this averment, it cannot be said that after marriage, on 12.12.2019, the respondent was living in adultery with any person. As stated, the FIR which was lodged by her against Madan Bohra on 25.11.2018 and the affidavit, which has been filed in 482 case by the respondent also states that she and Madan Bohra were in relationship. It does not write that on the date of filing of the affidavit, the respondent was in relationship with Madan Bohra. 9. Moreover, the question living in adultery is a question of fact, which needs to be tested during trial. In the petition like an instant one, this fact may not be decided. It requires evidence from either side. 10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that in these proceedings, no interference is warranted. The parties may prove their case by leading evidence during trial in the case. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. The petition is dismissed.