# Savita Devi @ Pinki Gautam @ Shivangi Shishodiya v. Jitendra Gautam

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 244
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-30
- **Case number:** First Appeal Defective No. 530 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arindam Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/savita-devi-pinki-gautam-shivangi-shishodiya-v-jitendra-gautam-53348
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 5, 5(i), 11 & 24 - Appeal filed by
Wife - against order passed by family court,
whereby
the
Family
Court
rejected
her
application for maintenance pendente lite -
matrimonial dispute - husband filed as petition
to declare the marriage void, citing violation of
Section 5(i) of the HM Act, - application for
maintenance, duding pendency of petition -
rejected - on the ground of concealment of fact
from court regarding previous marriage -
Appeal - court finds that - Husband earns
₹65,000/month and owns a business, - no
evidence on record to prove the wife's
employment or financial independence - court
held that, court below should emphasized the
Section 24 and focuses on financial need, not
validity of marriage - hence, direction issued to
the husband to pay Rs. 15,000/month to wife as
maintenance pendente lite along with arrears
within stipulated time and the Family Court
5 All. Savita Devi @ Pinki Gautam @ Shivangi Shishodiya Vs. Jitendra Gautam
245
should expedite the matrimonial proceedings,
with no adjournments from the appellant -
appeal disposed of, accordingly. (Para - 6, 7, 8,
9)

Appeal Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur - AIR 2025 SC

## Text

244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Supra) and the same is, therefore, being
reproduced here as under :

"43. It is clear from the above
paragraph that in the case where facts are
hazy and the investigation has just begun,
High Court should permit the investigation
to proceed. In case the High Court stays
further investigation it should assign
reasons.
We
are
not
staying
the
investigation but it appears from the
material on record that in present case
implication of petitioners may be found to
be false, therefore, their right to liberty is
required to be protected during the period
of statutory investigation in the allegations
made against them in the FIR. Investigation
can be stayed in this case but that would
come in the way of speedy investigation
which
in
requirement
of
criminal
administration of justice as held by Apex
Court in the above paragraph. We do not
intend
to
delay
the
investigation
proceedings at all but for the reasons given
above intend to protect the petitioners from
arrest till investigation against them is
completed by police."

52. We thus, though have refrained
from interfering in the instant case, give
protection to the petitioner by providing
that he would not be arrested till the
investigation is over. This would be subject
to the condition that the petitioner would
co-operate in the investigation.

53. There is one more reason for
granting the above relief. The interim order
with regard to stay on the arrest was
granted in the month of December 2024
and as per the counsel for the petitioner, the
liberty was never misused and that the
petitioner had always participated in the
enquiry. This fact has not also been denied
by the State.
54. With the above observations,
the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

55. Needless to mention that till the
investigation is going on, the petitioner
shall not leave the country.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 244
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.

First Appeal Defective No. 530 of 2025

Savita Devi @ Pinki Gautam @ Shivangi
Shishodiya ...Appellant
Versus
Jitendra Gautam ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Arun Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Akash Chandra Maurya

Civil Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 5, 5(i), 11 & 24 - Appeal filed by
Wife - against order passed by family court,
whereby
the
Family
Court
rejected
her
application for maintenance pendente lite -
matrimonial dispute - husband filed as petition
to declare the marriage void, citing violation of
Section 5(i) of the HM Act, - application for
maintenance, duding pendency of petition -
rejected - on the ground of concealment of fact
from court regarding previous marriage -
Appeal - court finds that - Husband earns
₹65,000/month and owns a business, - no
evidence on record to prove the wife's
employment or financial independence - court
held that, court below should emphasized the
Section 24 and focuses on financial need, not
validity of marriage - hence, direction issued to
the husband to pay Rs. 15,000/month to wife as
maintenance pendente lite along with arrears
within stipulated time and the Family Court
5 All. Savita Devi @ Pinki Gautam @ Shivangi Shishodiya Vs. Jitendra Gautam
245
should expedite the matrimonial proceedings,
with no adjournments from the appellant -
appeal disposed of, accordingly. (Para - 6, 7, 8,
9)

Appeal Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur - AIR 2025 SC
951.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.)

1. The appeal has been preferred by
the wife against judgment dated 3rd May,
2025 of the Family Court dismissing her
application under section 24 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, for maintenance
pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.
Respondent-husband had filed petition in
the Family Court to declare the marriage
void on ground that it contravened clause
(i) in section 5. It is during pendency of the
husband's petition that appellant had filed
for maintenance.

2. The Family Court upon hearing
the
parties
and
going
through
the
documents on record found appellant to
have been guilty of concealment regarding
previous marriage, to cause doubt, due to
which it was not appropriate to give
maintenance amount under section 24. The
learned Judge said that appellant's previous
marriage ended only on 15th April, 2024.

3. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi,
learned advocate appears on behalf of
appellant and submits, there was long
association between appellant and husband.
The husband cannot feign ignorance
regarding knowing everything about his
client. After long relationship, the marriage
was solemnized on 10th February, 2021 at
Jhansi, according to Hindu customs and
rituals. After the marriage, his client came
to live with respondent in Kanpur Nagar,
where respondent works in the Police,
earning, according to his client, Rs.65,000/-
per month. He also has his own building
material supply shop. As such, Rs.20,000/-
per month maintenance his client needs and
is entitled to get.

4. Mr. Akash Chandra Maurya,
learned advocate appears on behalf of
respondent and opposes the appeal. He
relies judgment dated 12th February,
2025 of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev
Singh Vs. Sukhbir Kaur reported in AIR
2025 SC 951. He submits, declaration of
law by the judgment was that direction for
maintenance is in the discretion of the
Court and conduct of the party is a relevant
factor.

5. Section 11 provides for void
marriages. Ground taken by respondent to
urge void marriage is contravention of
clause (i) under section 5. Said clause is
reproduced below.

"5. Conditions for a Hindu
marriage,---
A
marriage
may
be
solemnized between any two Hindus, if the
following conditions are fulfilled, namely:--

 (i) neither party has a
spouse living at the time of the marriage;"

There is thus no dispute that the
marriage was solemnized between the
parties on 10th February, 2021.

6. For purpose of adjudicating the
appeal, it is not necessary for us to find on
other facts regarding allegation of appellant
that there was separation from her first
husband and compromise confirming the
separation prior to her association and
marriage with respondent. This is because
section 24 provides for a spouse to have
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintenance pendente lite and expenses of
proceedings. The section is reproduced
below.

"24. Maintenance pendente lite
and expenses of proceedings.-

Where in any proceeding under
this Act it appears to the court that either
the wife or the husband, as the case may
be, has no independent income sufficient
for her or his support and the necessary
expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the
application of the wife or the husband,
order the respondent to pay to the
petitioner the expenses of the proceeding,
and monthly during the proceeding such
sum as, having regard to the petitioner's
own income and the income of the
respondent, it may seem to the court to be
reasonable:Provided that the application
for the payment of the expenses of the
proceeding and such monthly sum during
the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be
disposed of within sixty days from the date
of service of notice on the wife or the
husband, as the case may be."
(emphasis supplied)

What is important is for the Court
to ascertain whether the party seeking
maintenance pendente lite and expenses,
requires it, as to be paid by the other party
in
a
matrimonial
dispute
pending
adjudication.

7. The Family Court appears to
have been convinced about concealment
caused by appellant, of her then, said to be,
existing marital status as well as that she
had represented to be working in the
Income Tax department. There does not
appear to be a finding against appellant's
contention that parties were together and
did get married. In fact, the learned Judge
has recorded in impugned judgment that
the marriage took place in Jhansi and after
the marriage, appellant moved to Kanpur
Nagar to stay with respondent. On query
Mr. Tripathi submits, his client is presently
residing at Jhansi at the address given in
the cause title.

8. It may well be that appellant had
concealed and misled respondent about
herself. It may also well be that respondent
may find success in the matrimonial
proceeding, to get a decree declaring the
marriage void. However, there was no
material on record before the Family Court
to show that appellant had any means to
support
herself.
Respondent
did
not
produce any evidence to show appellant is
working, let alone in the Income Tax
department. As aforesaid, the learned Judge
recorded in impugned judgment that
appellant, after the marriage, came to
Kanpur Nagar to reside with respondent.

9. We are satisfied that there ought
to have been direction for maintenance
pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.
Impugned judgment is reversed. In view of
aforesaid, we think fit to direct respondent
to pay consolidated sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month
to
appellant
as
maintenance
pendente lite and her expenses to defend
the matrimonial proceeding. Respondent
will pay from date of the application i.e.,
15th April, 2025. The arrears including
current are to be paid by 14th June, 2025
and
subsequent
monthly
maintenance
within 7th of the succeeding month. Mr.
Maurya submits, there be direction to
expedite the matrimonial proceeding. We
request the Family Court to so expedite.
Appellant must not be seen to seek
adjournment.

10. We record our appreciation on
the Registry/Department having had made
5 All. M/S Sah Agencies Private Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Cinni Foundation Trust & Ors.
247
English translation of impugned
judgment, overnight.

11. The appeal is allowed to above
extent and disposed of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 247
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Commercial Appeal No. 8 of 2025

M/s Sah Agencies Private Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Cinni Foundation Trust & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Mr. Anupam Kulshreshtha, Mr. Arpit
Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Anand Kumar Singh, Mr. Ashish Kumar
Singh

Civil Law - Commercial Courts Act, 2015Section 12-A-Suit instituted for a decree for
permanent prohibitory injunction- restraining
the defendants from using, selling, soliciting etc.
or, in any other manner, dealing or using the
trademark 'CINNI' -and also restraining them
from disposing of or dealing with the assets and
stock in trade-decree for mandatory injunction
was also claimed directing the defendants to
deliver all the finished and unfinished materials
bearing the impugned and violative trademark
to
the
plaintiffs-
an
application
seeking
temporary injunction on the lines of permanent
prohibitory injunction was moved- an application
requesting dispensation/exemption from the
requirement of mediation- order impugned in
three parts-the first part dispenses with the
statutory
requirement
of
pre-institution
mediation - the second part granted ex- parte
interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffrespondents-third part relates to appointment of
Amin Commissioner and Advocate Commissioner
to conduct some investigation- no reasoning
was
assigned
while
dispensing
with
the
mandatory
requirements
of
pre-institution
mediation-the contents of application under
Section 12-A are contrary to the reasoning
assigned while granting temporary injunctionimpugned order set aside.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Vs Rakheja
Engineers Pvt. Ltd.: AIR 2022 Supreme Court
3848

2. Smt. Chitra Agrawal Vs Jagdish Saran Goel:
1995 (1) ARC 80;

3. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & ors.Vs Coca Cola
Co. & ors.: (1995) 5 SCC 545

4. Yamini Manohar Vs T.K.D. Keerthi: (2024) 5
SCC 815

5. Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I. & anr.:
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1129

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Shri Anupam Kulshreshtha,
learned
counsel
for
the
defendantappellants, Shri Ashish Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for plaintiff-respondents
and perused the record.

THE CHALLENGE

2. The present appeal has been filed by
the defendants of Original Suit No.10 of
2025
challenging
the
order
dated
05.04.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer,
Commercial Court, Varanasi. The order
impugned is in three parts; the first part
dispenses with the statutory requirement of