Jaswant Singh vs Ajmer Kaur

S.S. Grewal, J.—This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Article 227 of toe Constitution of India, relates to quashment of impugned order dated 18-5-1989 Annexure P/1 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur whereby interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month was awarded to the wife in the proceedings u/s 125 of the Code from the date of application, i.e. 30-3-1988, as well as against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dated 10-11-1981 Annexure P/2, whereby, the order of the trial Court was upheld.

Brief relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 19S7 and no child was born out of their wedlock. The respondent had deserted her and she has been residing separately with her brothers.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while granting the interim maintenance both the Courts below have erred in not taking into consideration about 20 Kanals of land owned and possessed by the wife in her parental village and secondly, the impugned order could only be passed from the date of the order of the trial Court, and, not from the date of application for grant of interim maintenance.

It is not disputed by either side that interim maintenance can be provided to the wife during the pendency of the proceedings u/s 125 of the Code, in order to prevent vagrancy and destitution. Such maintenance is neither luxurious nor penurious hut is modestly consistent and it should be according to the needs and requirements of the wife. It is also not disputed in view of the authoritative pronouncement by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shri Bhagwan Dutt Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and Another, that while deciding the quantum of maintenance which may be granted to the wife u/s 125 of the Code separate income of the wife from her own property is also to be taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments.

The learned trial Court after affording adequate opportunities to the parties has yet to finally decide whether in the proceedings u/s 125 of the Code, the wife is entitled to the grant of maintenance and if so, what would be the quantum of such maintenance and from which date such maintenance is to be awarded to the wife.

In these circumstances it is not appropriate for this Court to go into the merits of the case in order to decide the various pleas raised on behalf of the husband, referred to above. Thus, there is no cogent reason to alter the impugned order granting interim maintenance to the wife at this stage. However, it is clarified that while finally deciding the proceedings u/s 125 of the Code, it would be open to the trial Court to decide all these pleas on merits and nothing herein observed for the disposal of this petition shall, in any manner, be construed to effect the rights of the parties on merits. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15-2-1990. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the main petition u/s 125 of the Code expeditiously, after affording adequate opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence.