VEERABHADRAPPA Vs. VEDAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. before the JMFC, Challakere, seeking maintenance from the petitioner husband. Notice was ordered thereon to the petitioner husband. In the meantime, respondent filed an interlocutory application i. e. I. A. No. I seeking interim maintenance. Learned Magistrate, by his order dated 31-10-1996, granted interim maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month from the said date. Notice of IA No. I was also ordered. Petitioner husband appeared through a counsel and filed objections. Matter was then posted from time to time for payment of interim maintenance and on 5-4-1997. Petitioner husband filed objections to the main petition as also to the interlocutory application. It may be mentioned in this context that the petitioner husband had appeared through a counsel on 7-12-1996, and, it was only on 5-4-1997 that he filed objections to the main petition and to the interlocutory application. Matter was then posted for enquiry from time to time. In the meantime, learned Magistrate straight away issued an arrest warrant against the petitioner husband with regard to recovery of interim maintenance. On 31-7-1997, when the petitioner husband was present in Court, and when the arrest warrant issued earlier had also remained unexecuted, learned Magistrate passed the order to the following effect :

(2.) AT the out set, it needs to be stated that the order of granting interim maintenance by the learned Magistrate on 31-10-1996 has not been challenged by the petitioner husband. That order very much holds the field till today, making it obligatory on the part of the petitioner husband to pay the same until his objections are heard by the learned Magistrate, and until his obligation thereunder would cease only if, on hearing his objections, the I. A. comes to be dismissed. We are only concerned with the petitioner husband's challenge to the order dated 31-7-1997 extracted above, namely, with regard to the mode of recovery of the said interim maintenance.

(3.) THE order of payment of interim maintenance is in vogue according to the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, AIR 1986 SC 984. This is what the Supreme Court said in that regard in paragraph-6 of the judgment :