VIJAY KUMAR VYAS,J. - (1.) By way of this criminal writ petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa in Criminal Appeal (BT) No.79/2015 (149/2015) whereby allowing the appeal partly he modified the order dated 20.11.2015 passed by learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalya, Dausa and reduced the amount of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 7,500/- per month to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent as maintenance on interim basis. Learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalya, Dausa passed the order dated 20.11.2015 in Miscellaneous Application No.252/2014 (BT No.176/2015) under section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 whereby the trial court ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent on interim basis till disposal of the main application under section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the parties belong to Meena community where customary rites prevail and as per custom, they can leave each other from wedlock without following the procedure prescribed in Hindu Marriage Act and get married to some other person as well. Accordingly, on 31.5.2014, both the parties agreed to get separated from the wedlock and an agreement on stamp paper of Rs. 10/- to the effect was executed and signed by both of them. On the same day, respondent entered into an agreement with third person Ramkesh wherein both of them agreed to live as husband and wife and declared that they have married in a temple on the day. This agreement was signed by both respondent and said Ramkesh as well as four witnesses. This agreement was also executed on stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. As such, the respondent is no more wife of the petitioner with effect from 31.5.2014. She is now living with said Ramkesh as his wife. Subsequently, on 4.11.2014 respondent lodged an FIR No.260/2014 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Dausa against petitioner for offence under section 498A, 406, 323 IPC and sections 2, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, wherein after investigation, police submitted a final report in negative. A protest petition submitted by the respondent was rejected by the Magistrate of the jurisdiction on 13.10.2016 and by the same order, learned Magistrate accepted the final report. Learned counsel further submitted that later on, on 22.9.2016 a meeting of the community Panchayat was convened wherein it was resolved to observe that respondent is living with Ramkesh as his wife which is not permissible as per customs of the community. It was also observed that there is no fault of Mukesh. Learned counsel concluded his submissions by stating that despite of such ample prima facie evidence, learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalya and learned Additional Sessions Judge passed impugned orders without assigning any reason for disbelieving such evidence.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that there is no material on record to establish that provisions of Hindu Marriage Act does not apply to the Meena community. It is undisputed that the respondent is a duly wedded wife of the petitioner. Petitioner has failed to produce any legal proof to substantiate the alleged fact of dissolution of such marriage. Therefore, learned trial court rightly observed that until the evidence submitted by the petitioner is proved and dissolution of marriage is duly established during trial, the prayer for grant of interim maintenance made by respondent cannot be declined. Learned counsel further submits that the order of Magistrate of jurisdiction passed on 13.10.2016, is under challenge by way of revision submitted by the respondent and it can't be said that the matter has attained finality.;