Gokal Chand Taneja vs Lakshmi Bai and Another

A.P. Chowdhri, J.—Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that Smt. Lakshmi Bai (hereinafter referred to as ''the wife'') on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son Kishori Lal and minor daughter Veena Rani filed a petition u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband Gokal Chand on 1-7-1986. The case of the petitioner was that the respondent owned more than 60 acres of agricultural land (vide jamabandi, Annexure P-l and Annexure P-2), three trucks and a shop besides three kothis. The plea of the respondent was that three of the children born out of the wedlock were residing with him; that the petitioner along with two children left on her own accord and she bad joined a religious sect known as "sacha soda" and had renounced the world; that the respondent had not ever refused or neglected to maintain her. By order dated 31-3-1989, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate fixed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month for the wife and Rs. 350/- per month for the daughter. No maintenance was fixed for the son as during the pendency of the petition, the respondent under a compromise agreed to transfer three acres of land and hand over possession thereof to him for his maintenance. Aggrieved by the interim order, the husband has filed this revision.

The main grievance of learned counsel for the husband is that the interim maintenance fixed is on a high side and that there was no question of fixing any interim maintenance because the plea of the respondent that the wife bad renounced the world had been supported by close relations of the wife herself and that left no prima-facie case for claiming maintenance at all.

Undoubtedly, the learned trial Court will go into the merits of the case and take a decision on the aforesaid plea of the husband. Interim maintenance is evidently without prejudice to either side and it is to avoid a state of utter destitution because it is well known that even in cases of maintenance which require urgent relief, considerable time is spent by the courts in disposing of such matters. It will be prejudging the case if I were to go into the merits of the case at this stage. This order will, therefore, not cause any prejudice to either side as far as pleas of the parties are concerned.

With regard to the rate fixed by the Court, I am not in a position to comment adversely on the rates fixed by the learned Magistrate. I understand that the case is now nearing final stage. I have every hope that within two months of the communication of the result of this revision petition, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate will decide the case, according to law. With those remarks, the revision petition is disposed of as calling for no interference at this stage. I do not, at the amount, intend to suggest that the interim maintenance fixed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is the correct amount to which the petitioners are entitled. It is hoped that the learned Court will go into the evidence produced by the two sides and dispose of all other matters including the rate of maintenance, if any, to be determined, according to law.