RAHUL UPADHYAY Vs. ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to delete the respondents no. 1 & 2 from the array of parties during course of the day.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.2.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.3, District Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 287 of 2013 as well as the order dated 16.4.2013 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate First, District Jaunpur passed in Criminal Case No. 1041 of 2012 whereby the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no. 2 was allowed and the opposite party no. 2 has been allowed interim maintenance of Rs. 2000/ - from the date of order. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below has not applied its mind while passing the impugned orders.? It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that? the petitioner is not in a position to give the amount of interim maintenance from the date of order. He submits that the opposite party no. 2 is living in adultery with one Satyendra Pratap Mishra on whose instance the present application for maintenance has been filed and the opposite party no. 2 along with children are living in his house and the petitioner has no independent source of income to comply the order of interim maintenance passed by the court below. He further submits that the revisional court has also committed an error of law in upholding the order passed by the court below and hence the orders are liable to be set at rest. On the other hand learned AGA has supported the impugned orders and opposed this writ petition. Indisputably, opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of petitioner and the court below has only granted interim maintenance of Rs. 2000/ - to maintain herself and her children during the course of hearing on the application filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C., which cannot be said to be excessive in any circumstances of the case to meet both ends meal, and there are no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the courts below.

(3.) HAVING considered the rival submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA ,it emerges that the matter is still sub -judice before the court below. The petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the order of interim maintenance granted by the courts below. Since the matter is pending before the court below, the petitioner will have ample opportunity to adduce the material in support of his claim. The petitioner instead of paying the interim maintenance to his legally wedded wife is trying to dilate the matter by the process of law.