Basavantha Marate vs Mukthabai

Aravind Kumar

Petitioner who is the husband of respondent has called in question the order passed by District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri in Criminal Revision Petition No. 24/2011 dated. 17.10.2011 where under the Revision Petition No. 24/2011 came to be dismissed and the order dated 12.08.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 08/2009 by J.M.F.C, Shahapur ordering interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent came to be affirmed. Heard Sri. Sanjay A. Patil, Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner. Perused the order questioned in the present petition as also the order passed by J.M.F.C., Shahapur.

Respondent is the legally wedded wife of petitioner and on account of the petitioner not maintaining her, she filed a petition for maintenance. She also sought for grant of interim maintenance contending that petitioner is causing delay in the disposal of the said petition on one or the other ground and taking into consideration the entire evidence placed by the parties, J.M.F.C, Shahapur directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from 29.03.2011 till disposal of the main petition. Admittedly the respondent has claimed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance.

Petitioner being aggrieved by said order preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Yadgiri who on appreciation of the contentions raised did not interfere with the finding of J.M.F.C, Shahapur and rejected the revision petition. Though Sri. Sanjay A. Patil, Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner would contend that if notice is issued on this petition there is likelihood of settlement between parties. this Court is not entertaining said plea in as much as the petition in question was filed u/s 125 Cr. P.C. by the respondent on 18.12.2008 and for the last four years the same is pending without progress and the said proceeding is also moving at a snail''s pace. It is on account of this attitude of the petitioner viz., protracting the proceedings which has per forced the wife to seek interim maintenance. Though she sought for maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month, learned J.M.F.C taking into consideration the entire material on record as also evidence placed by parties has rightly come to a conclusion that respondent is entitled for Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by J.M.F.C., Shahapur, as affirmed by District and Sessions Judge,. Yadgiri. Hence petition stands rejected.