Jagdish Kaur @ Rama vs Vijay Kumar

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—The petitioner is the wife of respondent. She filed an application for maintenance u/s 125, Cr. P.C. There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner was married to the respondent in the year 1994 and two sons were born to them. During the pendency'' of the application for maintenance she applied for grant of interim maintenance. That application was dismissed by the learned JMIC on the ground that there was no refusal or negligence on the part of the husband to maintain his wife. This is, a matter to be decided only after evidence is adduced. Application u/s 125, Cr. P.C. has been filed.

It has been held by the Supreme Court in Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan, , that interim maintenance can be granted during the pendency of the application. Further when admittedly the husband and the wife are residing separately interim maintenance can be granted. Further as observed by the Supreme Court in Rajathi''s case (supra), in a case u/s 125, Cr. P.C. the Trial Court is to take prima facie view of the matter and it is not necessary for the Court to go into the matrimonial dispute between the parties in detail.

In this view of the matter I set aside the order of the learned JMIC Nakodar dated 20.3.1999 in so far as it negates the interim maintenance to the wife while confirming the order granting a sum of Rs. 300/- to applicant No. 2 who is the son of the petitioner and respondent. According to the petitioner the husband is earning Rs. 2,500/- per month. The learned JMIC came to the conclusion that the respondent-husband must be earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/-per month. In view of the income of the husband and also in view of the fact that the son of the petitioner has already been granted interim maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month I direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 250/- per month from 20.3.1999 i.e. from the date of the order of the learned Magistrate.

This petition is accordingly disposed of.