MANHERLAL MULCHAND GANDHI Vs. SAVITABEN MULCHAND GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the son of the respondent No. 1-mother, has filed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in the operative part of his order, though he allowed the revision application of the petitioner on 17-9-1992. By that condition, the petitioner is directed to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month with effect from 1-8-1992 till the application for interim maintenance is decided by the trial Court and to pay costs of Rs. 300.00 to his mother.

(2.) The respondent No. 1-mother has filed maintenance application under Sec. 125 of Cr. P. C. against her two sons, viz., (1) the present petitioner and (2) present respondent No. 2, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Junagadh. Her Chief-examination was over and the petitioner was personally cross-examining her in which a particular question was asked by the petitioner which was disallowed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the same question was repeatedly asked. As the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the petitioner was unnecessarily delaying the case, therefore, he did not permit the petitioner to further cross-examine his mother and ordered to close the cross-examination. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted application Exh. 61 on 12-5-1992 before the learned Magistrate praying that he may be allowed to continue his cross-examination. It was objected to on behalf of the mother. The learned Magistrate rejected that application by his order dated 12-5-1992 as he was of the opinion that the applicant was an old lady and his son was personally cross-examining her since last two adjournments and even on the third date also, he was only repeating the same questions which were irrelevant and thereby deliberately delaying the case. He was of the view that the proceedings under Sec. 125 of Criminal Procedure Code are of a summary nature and therefore it should be decided as early as possible. Therefore, he held that further cross-examination which was not permitted earlier cannot be allowed subsequently.

(3.) The above order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting his application Exh. 61, was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 90 of 1992. The learned Sessions Judge allowed that revision by his order dated 17-9-1992 and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed further with the case, after giving an opportunity of further cross-examination to the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 300.00 per month by way of interim maintenance to the mother with effect from 1-8-1992 and also to pay costs of Rs. 300.00 of that revision application to his mother, which is challenged in this petition. On 12-11-1992, this Court admitted the petition and fixed it for final hearing on 7-12-1992 and also granted adinterim relief in terms of para 15(c) of the petition till further order. Thus, the aforesaid condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge and the order of payment of costs have been stayed by this Court.