SURESH KUMAR ALIAS RAKESH Vs. PINKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 02.03.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

(2.) RESPONDENT Pinki filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of interim maintenance before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat. Vide order dated 11.06.2009, the learned JMIC, Sonepat allowed the aforesaid application by granting Rs.4,000/-per month as interim maintenance to RESPONDENT Piniki during the pendency of the petition from the date of filing of the application. Rs. 5000/-was also granted to her towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgement passed by the JMIC Sonepat, the petitioner filed revision petition. The same was partly allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide judgement dated 02.03.2010 and the order dated 11.06.2009 passed by the JMIC, Sonepat was modified to the extend that the respondent is entitled for interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,000/-per month and Rs.2500/-as litigation expenses. Still aggrieved, the present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the Judgement dated 02.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. While challenging the aforesaid judgement, the only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly, the respondent was the wife of his brother. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner had entered into a Kareva marriage with the respondent is incorrect. A civil suit is pending in Delhi, in which, the status of the marriage is yet to be determined. Thus, the interim maintenance cannot be granted.

(3.) NO prayer for setting aside the order dated 11.06.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat is made. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the trial Court had granted Rs.4,000/-as interim maintenance and Rs.5,000/- was given as litigation expenses. The revisional Court modified the order by reducing the amount to Rs.2000/-as interim maintenance and Rs.2500/-as litigation expenses. Thus, no grievance can be said to have been caused to the present petitioner with the above modification. In case, the prayer of the petitioner is accepted and the order dated 02.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat is set aside, the petitioner would rather have to pay Rs.4000/-as interim maintenance and Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses. Thus, the very prayer of the petitioner is innocuous.