SUNANDH SELVARAJ Vs. AMITHA GILBERT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. seeking maintenance from the petitioner. During the pendency of the petition interim maintenance at a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month was awarded. The same is being paid since 2005 regularly to the respondent. Thereafter, on contest the petition under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. was allowed and maintenance has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per month from the date of the petition and that the interim maintenance paid shall be deducted out of the maintenance awarded. Aggrieved, by the same, the respondent has filed the present Petition.

(2.) Sri. Satish G. Raikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that an error has been committed by the lower Court in passing the impugned order and hence, interference is called for. He contends that the petitioner has filed the Petition before the very same Court seeking divorce in M. C. No. 837/2005 under Section 10(vii), (x), 19 (4) and 10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, ostensibly on the ground of adultery, cruelty and non-consummation of marriage. He further contends that the said M. C. No. 837/2005 was being considered in tandem with C. Misc. No. 186/2005. He, therefore, contends that in view of the rival contentions of both the parties and in view of the fact that serious allegations have been made in both the Petitions they were being considered simultaneously. The Court below bifurcating the two cases and passed an order of maintenance, which is not appropriate in the given circumstances of the case.

(3.) Sri Sampat Bapat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand, defends the impugned order inasmuch as he submits that there is no error committed by the trial Court that calls for interference. He contends that keeping in mind the income of the petitioner a sum of Rs. 12,000/- has been awarded which does not call for any interference. On the other hand, he submits that recklessly, unnecessary allegations have been made against the respondent which is pending consideration in M. C. No. 837/2005. He, therefore, submits that irrespective of the contentions in M. C. No. 837/2005 the present Petition is to be considered independently. He contends that the Court below considering the income of the petitioner has awarded maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- which itself is meagre. Therefore, the maintenance awarded is appropriate.