SURYAKANTI RAO Vs. SARATHI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 1997.

(2.) A detailed narration of facts is not necessary. The relevant fact is that petitioner No. 1 claiming as the legally married wife and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as the children out of wedluck claimed for maintenance under section 125, Cr. P. C. by filing an application in the court of S. D. J. M., Titilagarh which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 43 of 1996. On 20 -9 -1996 an ex parte order of interim maintenance was passed granting interim monthly maintenance @ Rs. 200/ - to each of the petitioners and the stipulation was made in that order that the petitioner shall execute a P. R. bond of Rs. 5,000/ - with an undertaking to refund the interim maintenance amount if ultimately she would be found not entitled to the maintenance under section 125, Cr. P. C. On 27 -3 -1997, the proceeding under section 125, Cr. P. C. was disposed of ex parte by granting maintenance in favour of each of the petitioners. However, on the application filed by the opposite party under sub -section (2) of section 126, Cr. P. C. learned S. D. J. M. set aside the ex parte order of maintenance but order was passed to keep the order of interim maintenance in abeyance. The opposite party filed an application before the S. D. J. M. to recall the order of interim maintenance and the petitioners filed an application to vacate the order of abeyance of the interim maintenance. On 5 -8 -1997, learned S. D. J. M. on due consideration of both the applications and the contention thereof directed the opposite party to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 200/ - per month to each of the petitioners till disposal of the original case i.e. the application under section 125, Cr. P. C. with the same stipulations made in the order dated 20 -9 -1996 (i.e. relating to executing P. R. bond). That order of learned S. D. J. M. was challenged by the opposite party in the aforesaid criminal revision No. 11 of 1997. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge after noting the facts and circumstances allowed therevision application and set aside the order dated 5 -8 -1997 of learned S. D. J. M. on the following ground that :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, argued that on restoration of the proceeding under section 125, CR. P. C. since there was no automatic revival of the order of interim maintenance, therefore, learned S. D. J. M. was wrong in directing for payment of interim maintenance as per the order dated 5 -8 -1997.