MINHAZ UDDIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. B. Asthana, J. I have perused the record and considered the argu ments advanced on behalf of the revisionist.

(2.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 27-10-1994 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Meerut in criminal case No. 1212 of 1991 under Section 125, Cr PC by which the revisionist has been directed to pay interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400 per month from 19-9-1991 i. e. date of application. THIS order was passed on 27-10-1994. From the order passed it would appear that the case could not be decided at the present revisionist used to move one application after another in order to delay the disposal of the case. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the court below committed any illegality or impropriety in granting interim main tenance allowance from the date of application. In Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, AIR 1986 SC 984: the Supreme Court held that having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a Magistrate under Section 125, Cr PC, the said provision should be interpreted as confirming power by neces sary implication on the Magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom 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. In view of this ruling the maintenance allowance can be granted from the date of application itself.

(3.) THE order dated 14-2-1995 passed by the family court issuing recovery warrant would remain stayed for one month in order to enable the revisionist to pay the maintenance allowance from the date of order upto date. THE recovery of arrears previous to the date of order would depend upon the order passed by the trial Court in the light of the directions given above. Revision dismissed. .