Surjit Singh vs Sheela Bai and Others

A.S. Nehra, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.8.1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Fazilka by which the application filed by the respondent for ad-interim maintenance u/s 125, Cr. P.C., was allowed. Mr. Vinod Khungar, Advocate, for the petitioner has contended that proceedings u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act are pending between the parties, therefore, respondents are not entitled to get ad-interim maintenance.

Learned Counsel for the respondents had 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 petitioner-husband without sufficient cause can be considered by the Trial Court at the time when petition u/s 125. Cr. P.C. will be finally decided and not at the time of granting ad-interim maintenance.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find no force in the argument of the Counsel for petitioner. Petition filed u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending and no decree for restitution of conjugal rights 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 u/s 125, Cr. P.C.. is finally decided and not at the stage of granting ad-interim maintenance. Respondents are entitled to interim maintenance and ad-interim 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.