Surendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

No notice is issued to private respondents in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private respondents to apply for variation or modification of this order, if they feel so aggrieved.

The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed maintenance case No. 1515 of 2007 against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit which was allowed, vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2010 and the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month to respondent No. 2 and at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to the respondent No. 3 till her marriage with effect from the date of application. The petitioner filed a cr. revision No. 15 of 2010 in the Sessions Court which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Pilibhit, vide judgment and order dated 6.7.2010. Both the orders are under challenged in this petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the finding of fact recorded by the Magistrate. The only prayer is that the maintenance allowance should have been granted from the date of order and should not have been ordered to pay with effect from the date of application.

During pendency of the proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C., not even a single penny was paid as an interim maintenance to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and therefore, order directing for the maintenance allowance with effect from the date of application cannot be said to be unjustified.

I don''t find any good ground to interfere in the matter.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted three months time to pay arrears of maintenance allowance.