MOHAMMAD SHAFI Vs. NAJMA BANOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Mohd. Shafi the petitioner has been directed by the Magistrate to pay Rs. 125/ - per month as interim maintenance to Smt. Najma Bano, Opposite party. It so appears that Smt. Najma Bano moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance against her husband Mohd. Shafi. Mohd. Shafi is contesting the application on the ground that he has divorced Smt. Najma Bano on her request on 5th September, 1980 and that Smt. Najma Bano has re -married with Mohd. Shah s/o Sri Mohd. Hussain but the second husband has expired on 17th April, 1985. These points raised by the husband have not been finally decided by the learned Magistrate. Meanwhile Smt. Najma Bano moved an application for interim maintenance on the ground that she has no source of income and it is absolutely necessary to keep her alive during pendency of the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C., to direct the petitioner for payment of interim maintenance. Learned Magistrate after hearing the submissions of both the parties arrived at the conclusion that Smt. Najma Bano is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and petitioner has refused to maintain her. He has further arrived at the conclusion that she is unable to maintain herself. In view of these findings the learned Magistrate by his order dated 16th August, 1986 directed the husband to pay the interim maintenance. The petitioner has approached the Family Court, thereafter, without complying with the orders of the Magistrate for payment of the interim maintenance, so the Family Court has vice its order dated 9th February, 1987 and 18th April, 1987 directed the petitioner to comply with the orders of the Magistrate for payment of interim maintenance. In Smt. Savitri's case, 1985 ACC page 447 it has been held that a Magistrate before whom an application is made under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. can make an interim order directing the persons against whom the application is made under that Section to pay reasonable maintenance to the applicant pending disposal of the application. In view of this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court learned Magistrate was well within his jurisdiction in granting interim maintenance and having gone through the record and material placed before me I do not find the order passed by the Courts below as abuse of process of the Court or miscarriage of justice. The matter is still subjudice and has not been finally decided. It is, therefore, not proper for this Court to express its opinion on merits of the case. In the result, I see no substance in the petition. Petition is consequently dismissed and the stay order is vacated.

(2.) APPREHENSION of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party may, in view of the interim order, try to delay the proceedings, cannot be ruled out as without any basis. In case where a Magistrate grants interim maintenance to the wife, it is the duty of the Magistrate to see that the matter is not permitted to linger on and he shall see that the matter is finally disposed of as early as possible so that the husband may not be harassed by paying the interim maintenance in case the final decision goes in his favour. The Court below is, therefore, directed to see that the matter pending before it is disposed of as early as possible and no party is permitted to delay the proceedings. With these observations the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.