IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 621/2009 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Kunal Tyagi …….Applicant Versus Ishita Tyagi ……Respondent Mr. K.K. Tyagi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, for the respondent. Mr. Kunal Tyagi, applicant/petitioner and Smt. Ishita Tyagi, respondent are present in person. 23rd November, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, moved under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant has prayed to set aside the order dated 24.7.2009, passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Case No. 02/2009, Smt. Ishita Tyagi v. Kunal Tyagi, filed under Section 125 CrPC by Smt. Ishita Tyagi, seeking maintenance from her husband Kunal Tyagi. In the said petition, the interim maintenance application moved by Smt. Ishita Tyagi was allowed, and Mr. Kunal Tyagi was directed to pay her ad interim maintenance @ ` 8,000/- per month during the pendency of the said petition w.e.f. 9.1.2009 i.e. from the date of filing of the said petition under Section 125 CrPC. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers available on record. Applicant Kunal Tyagi and the respondent Smt. Ishita Tyagi are also present in person, who also addressed this Court. 3. Brief acts of the case are that wedding of Smt. Ishita Tyagi was solemnized with Kunal Tyagi on 15.2.2008 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Roorkee. After the marriage, differences cropped up between the two families on account of 2 sundry factors including dowry. Smt. Ishita Tyagi was being harassed for the same, and when the atrocities crossed the tolerable limits, she had to leave her matrimonial house at Meerut and forced to return to her parental house at Roorkee. Thereafter she filed the aforementioned Case No. 2/2009 under Section 125 CrPC on9.1.2009 claiming maintenance from her husband, wherein she also claimed interim maintenance during the pendency of the lis. The court below, after rendering opportunity of hearing to both the parties, allowed the interim maintenance application moved by Smt. Ishita Tyagi vide the order dated 24.7.2009, and directed her husband Kunal Tyagi to pay her interim maintenance to the tune of rupees eight thousand per month with effect from 9.1.2009, as stated above. 4. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid order dated 24.7.2009 by filing this petition. After the presentation of this petition, this Court granted the interim relief to the applicant/husband and reduced the amount of ad interim maintenance granted by the court below from ` 8000/- per month to ` 5,000/- per month payable with effect from January, 2009 till the final disposal of the instant petition. Since then, Mr. Kunal Tyagi kept on paying the maintenance as ordered by this Court until September, 2011. In October, 2011, the applicant moved an application before this Court stating therein that Smt. Ishita Tyagi has remarried herself with one Mr. Vinay Tyagi, S/o Dev Pal, resident of Kishunpura, District Saharanpur probably in the month of February, 2011. It has been argued that a complaint under Section 494, 420 IPC has been filed in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut for the said act of Smt. Ishita Tyagi, and the learned Magistrate, after recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 CrPC, passed the cognizance order dated 19.8.2011 against her and other accused persons. 3 5. No proof whatsoever has been produced before this Court on behalf of the applicant petitioner to substantiate his allegation that Smt. Ishita Tyagi has remarried herself. Mere taking of cognizance by the Magistrate of Meerut Court on the basis of ex parte statements made under Section 200 and 202 CrPC is not enough to discard the impugned order. It would also be significant to mention here that Mr. K.K. Tyagi, father of the applicant (husband), is a practicing lawyer at Meerut Courts. 6. The impugned order dated 24.7.2009, passed by the Additional Family Judge, Roorkee is a reasoned order. I do not find any illegally, irregularity or impropriety in the said impugned order and it does not require any interference by this Court. The applicant cannot shirk himself from the responsibility of maintaining his wife. 7. In the result, the petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Interim orders dated 16.9.2009, 28.10.2009 and 11.10.2011, passed by this Court, stand vacated. 8. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 23.11.2011 Prabodh