PURUSHOTTAM Vs. JAYANTI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision of the order passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge. West Nimar, Barwani reversing the order passed by the trial Magistrate in a case under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. and granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the wife of the applicant,

(2.) SHRI B. A. Nigam, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge was illegal and improper. According to him the trial Court had rightly decided the application and there was no need for the revisional Court to set aside the order and grant interim maintenance. Shri B. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the non-applicant supported the impugned order.

(3.) I have perused the order passed by the Sessions Court as well as by the trial Court and have also gone through the certified copies of the pleadings filed by the applicant. The question of necessity to grant interim maintenance is essentially a question to be decided on a prima facie assessment of the position of both the parties before the Court. A detailed inquiry is not contemplated while deciding an application for interim maintenance. The trial Court had gone into details about the dispute between the parties and about their source of income of both the parties. It had adopted a hyper-technical attitude by stating that the affidavit filed in support of the interim application was not in first person but was in third person. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has, therefore rightly in enterfered with the order and has assessed the grant of interim maintenance by adopting the correct approach. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also observed that the application for interim maintenance was supported by an affidavit though the affidavit was in third person and not in first person but the husband has neither given his own affidavit nor has filed affidavit of any other person to support his contentions. In any case, it is not a fit case for interference by the High Court. In the very nature of things an order of interim maintenance has to be based on best judgment assessment and the High Court cannot substituted its own assessment in place of the assessment of the lower Courts unless such assessment is shown to be perverse or based on no material at-all.