RAFIKUNBAI Vs. LIYAKAT KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION-PETITIONER is the wife of the respondent. She filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance for herself and her child. The application was opposed by the respondent. The learned Magistrate ordered him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month for the wife and Rs. 100/- per month to the child, with effect from the date of the application in 1982. In revision filed by the respondent, the learned Sessions Judge directed maintenance to be paid from the date of the order of the learned Magistrate, namely, 30. 8. 1989. This order is now challenged.

(2.) IT has to be pointed out that neither of the Courts below gave any rational reason in support of its respective directions. It is, therefore, for this Court to examine the record to see whether it should interfere or not, see Saroj Bai v. Jai Kumar, (1994 JLJ 725 (Full Bench ).

(3.) THIS is a case where the wife and the child in distress and neglected by the respondent who was responsible for their maintenance, approached the Magistrate for relief. For one reason or the other, the matter dragged on for about 7 years. Inspite of delay, the learned Magistrate did not pass any order for interim maintenance. This is a mockery of the legislative intention to provide a summary, quick and comparatively cheap remedy. In Saroj Bai's case, the Full Bench observed: