Surjit Singh vs Sheela Bai and anr.

A. S. Nehra, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.8.1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fazilka by which the application filed by the respondent for adinterim maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., was allowed. Mr. Vinod Khungar, Advocate, for the petitioner has contended that proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act are pending between the parties, therefore, respondents are not entitled to get adinterim maintenance.

Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that so far no decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed against the wife, therefore, respondents are entitled for the grant of maintenance. He has further contended that whether the wife of the petitioner has refused to live with the petitionerhusband without sufficient cause can be considered by the trial Court at the time when, petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. will be finally decided and no at the time, of granting adinterim maintenance.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find no force in the argument of the counsel for petitioner. Petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending and no decree for restitution of conjugal has been passed against the wife. Whether Sheela Bai, Respondent refused to live with the petitioner without sufficient cause can be considered by the trial Court only at the time when petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C., is finally decided and not at the stage of granting adinterim maintenance. Respondents, are entitled to interim maintenance and adinterim maintenance granted to the respondents is only Rs. 350/ per month which is not excessive.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.