BABU LAL Vs. KRISHNA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition directed against the revisional order dated 7th Feb. 1989 passed in Cr. R. No. 8/88 of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Shajapur, modifying Trial Court's order Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. enhancing the amount of maintenance from Rs. 150/ - to Rs. 900/ - in respect of respondents Krishnabai and her son Rajesh aged about 5 years at the time of passing the impugned order.

(2.) ALTHOUGH there is no formal stay order passed in this proceeding, the record of the Courts below has been requisitioned vide order dated 8 -8 -91 when an application for early hearing moved by the respondents was considered and it was directed that the petition be listed for final hearing immediately on receiving the record, more than 2 years have already rolled by. The order of maintenance was passed on 15 -10 -1987. Since then the petitioner has not paid the amount of maintenance as ordered by the Courts below as is evident from the I.A. No. 726/91, the non -applicants have no other source of income or livelihood. It is in these circumstances that the prayer for adjournment made by the learned Counsel for the applicant is rejected.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the learned Magistrate in the order sheet dated 18 -6 -87 has noted that a notice has been returned with a report that the present petitioner was avoiding service of notice the notice itself is not to be found in the Trial Court's record so as to enable this Court to vinfy this statement. Counsel for the parties have also gone through the Trial Court's record and could not find any such notice. Now at this stage without going into the question whether in the circumstances drawing of ex -pane proceedings is not substantiated by record while speedy disposal of applications for maintenance is desirable it is equally desirable and probably more, that the orders should be passed after due service of notice to the parties. The Trial Court had ordered payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/ - p.m. for both the mother as well as her son Rajesh and no legitimate grievance can be made against the amount of Rs. 150/ - awarded as maintenance allowance. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Savitri v. Govindsingh, (AIR 1986 SC 984) now even interim maintenance can also be awarded following the same anolgy even if the impugned orders are set -aside, the amount as fixed by the Trial Court can still be treated as interim maintenance allowance and the petitioner who has not so far paid a paisa towards the maintenance allowance either as originally awarded or enhanced in revision by the Addl. Session's Judge, must deposit the total accumulated arrears of maintenance allowance as originally awarded by the Trial Court at the rate of Rs. 150/ - p.m. This amount shall be deposited by the petitioner by 15th Dec. 1993 in the Trial Court and on such deposit being made the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case by 31st of March, 1994. The petitioner shall continue to pay the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/ - p.m. during the pendency of the proceedings. The parties are directed to appear before the J.M F.C. Shajapur on 8 -11 -1993. Counsel to inform them accordingly. Subject to the conditions mentioned above the impugned revisional is set -aside, but Trial Court's order awarding maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/ -p.m. shall be treated as an interim order of maintenance. Shri Jaisingh, learned Counsel prays that if for some genuine reason the petitioner cannot, deposite the whole amount of arrears, the Trial Court should be directed to extend time for such deposit. It is only on substantial amount being deposited, if for genuine reason, the petitioner cannot deposit the total amount of maintenance upto date, he is free to apply to the Trial Court, who shall consider the application for grant of further reasonable time, and dispose of the same in accordance with law keeping in view the time limit fixed for disposal of the case as specified above. The revision petition stands finally disposed of.