Krishan Kumar vs Sunil Kumari

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Sunil Kumari filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance on the allegations that her husband Krishan Kumar had turned her out of the house and had neglected to maintain her. During the pendency of the petition she claimed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/ per month. The trial Court after considering the respective contentions of the parties directed Krishan Kumar to pay a sum of Rs. 200/ per month by way of interim maintenance to Sunil Kumari till the decision of the petition. Sunil Kumari was not satisfied with this order dated 24.8.1991 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak and filed a revision petition. Her revision petition was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak and as per order dated 10.1.1992 the amount of interim maintenance payable to Sunil Kumari was enhanced to Rs. 500/ per month. Krishan Kumar has assailed this order by way of the present revision petition.

The learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner contended that the question as to what was the actual income of the husband and to what amount the wife is entitled by was of maintenance will be decided by the trial Court after the parties led evidence to that effect. But he prayed that the case in the trial Court may not linger on and direction may be issued for the disposal of the main petition within a specified time. The learned counsel for the respondent also conceded to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

Since case for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is yet to be decided on merits so no finding are given at this stage as regards the quantum of interim maintenance payable to the wife. The trial Court is, however, directed to dispose of the main petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure expeditiously on merits preferably within six months on receipts of the order. Till then the revision petitioner will pay the interim maintenance allowance as fixed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Both the parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on 1.10.1992.