R.C. Deepak, J. - (1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit annexing the copy of marriage certificate dated 29.7.2002 filed, be taken on record. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Seema Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 4 Ajay Kumar Gupta alias Jugnu was solemnized on 29.7.2002 as is evidently clear from Annexure -1 to the supplementary affidavit. It appears the Marriage Officer wrongly cancelled the marriage for which he was not authorised. The petitioner has filed a maintenance application under section 125, Cr. P.C. and moved an application for interim maintenance which was dismissed on 8.7.2005 on the ground that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 4 was not strictly proved. A revision was preferred which was also dismissed on 10.11.2005. The future contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the objections raised by the respondent with regard to non -solemnization of marriage has not been supported by evidence rather the petitioner prima facie proved the marriage with respondent. The Courts below committed material illegality in scrutinizing the evidence while disposing of the interim maintenance application which was not warranted then specially when the main application for the maintenance is still pending for final disposal on merit. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that before granting interim maintenance allowance a marriage is required to be proved. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent could not reply why a marriage certificate dated 29.7.2002 was issued, if there was no marriage at all. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merit thereof I am of the view that the orders dated 8.7.2005 and 10.11.2005 under the facts and circumstances of the case are necessarily required to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed and the present writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the Trial Court shall proceed expeditiously with the maintenance proceeding and after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned dispose of the same on merit in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of the presentation of a certified copy of this order and till then the respondent No. 4 Ajay Kumar Gupta alias Jugnu shall pay Rs. 2,000/ - per month as interim maintenance allowance to the petitioner. The money shall be deposited with the Court below and the Court below shall release the same in favour of petitioner forthwith.;