MADHU ALIAS SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. LALITA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of interim maintenance has been passed against the petitioner in favour of the respondent by J. M. F. C. Balaghat on 16-4-98 in Cr. Case No. 57/95 under Section 125 Cr. P. C. . The objection of the petitioner-husband is that the wife was not complying with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the Court of Distt. Judge, Balaghat on 19-3-97 in C. S. No. 28-A/92. The petition for maintenance was filed by the wife before the magistrate in the year 1995. It appears that while the petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. as well as suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act were pending, the husband was paying interim maintenance to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act under orders of the Distt. Judge, where the suit was pending. That maintenance pendent lite was stopped after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed. The decree is said to be under appeal now in the High Court but the operation has not been stayed. It was after that decree that the wife moved for interim maintenance in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C. and the magistrate passed the order dated 16-4-98 granting maintenance @ Rs. 200/p. m. . The proceedings are still pending.

(2.) IN Cr. Revision No. 54/98 the plea of the husband was declined that the wife was not entitled even to interim maintenance because of the final decree of restitution of conjugal rights not being complied by the wife, on the ground that the matter was subject matter of trial and the maintenance was interim. The revisional Court said that it was an interim order and so revision petition did not lie.

(3.) THE order of interim maintenance is also an order of moment as it substantially effects the financial position of both the sides. It is accept position that if the husband does not comply his property can be attached or he can be sent in prison. So the view of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that it is an interlocutory order against which revision would not lie, is erroneous.