Trilok Nath vs State of U.P. and Another

N.B. Asthana, J.—This revision has been directed against the order dated 21.4.92 passed by the then IIIrd Additional C.J.M., Kanpur Dehatin case No. 94 of 1991 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. granting interim alimony to the opposite party at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month w.e.f. 17.9.91. Kono appeared to press this revision. I have perused the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Court of revision.

It has been stated that the interim alimony could not have been granted by the Trial Court. In view of the law laid down in Savitri Rawat Vs. Govind Singh Rawat, , the Trial Court was entitled to grant pendents life the maintenance allowance. In the aforesaid ruling the Supreme Court relying upon AIR 1975 SC 93, Rhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamla Devi held that "Having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a Magistrate u/s 125, the said provision should be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication on the Magistrate to pass an order directing a person against when an application is made under it to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance subject to the other conditions referred to pending final disposal of the application."

It has also been stated in the grounds of revision that the revisionist offered orally as well as in writing to keep the opposite party No. 2 with him but she referred to do so. This is a matter to be decided at the time of the conclusion of the proceeding. No finding can be recorded in this respect at this stage. It has also been stated that the revisionist himself is out of employment and is defendant on his parents and, therefore, is not in a position to pay any maintenance allowance to the opposite party No. 8. Since the opposite party No. 2 is admittedly his legally wedded wife he is under a pious duty to maintain her. If he is unable to get any employment he mast do physical labour to earn livelihood for himself and for his wife. It has also been stated that in her statement she gave out that she is earning and that she own also support her husband. The Trial Court has explained this statement by stating that what she meant to say was that she would earn to maintain herself and also her husband. The statement given by her did not mean that she is earning and is able to maintain herself. Upon careful perusual of material place on record I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that the order passed suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The revision has no force and is dismissed, accordingly.