PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Paramjit Kaur, (wife) has preferred this criminal revision against the order dated 13-12-1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which he modified the order of the learned Magistrate, Kurukshetra, dated 12-12-1989, passed in proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P. C. granting interim maintenance with effect from the date of her application.

(2.) SHE had made application for maintenance against her husband, Surinder Singh and in those proceedings, she applied for the grant of interim maintenance which was allowed and the respondent-husband was ordered to pay Rs. 150/- p. m. , as interim maintenance from the date of application. The respondent did not challenge the quantum of interim maintenance, but assailed the order in question so far as it related to the date from which it was made payable. In revision the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order, directed the maintenance to be paid with effect from the date of the order of the learned Magistrate and not from the date of application. For holding this view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was impressed by the fact that there was delay on the part of the wife in getting the order of the Magistrate and also by relying on Charanjit Singh Grewal alias Gogai v. Inderjit Kaur, (1988) 15 Cr. L. T. 303, he has held that the Magistrate was required to give special reasons for fixing interim maintenance from the date of the application.

(3.) FOR deciding the application for interim maintenance, the parties were not called upon to lead any evidence and it had only to be disposed of on the basis of their affidavits and the arguments of the learned counsel. A reference to paragraph 6 of the impugned order shows that on certain dates, the case was adjourned on the request of both the counsel and on two dates, arguments were heard in part. Some dates were also granted at the request of applicant's counsel. Thus, there was no fault of the applicant-wife for those adjournments. If the Court showed some indulgence in adjourning the case at the request of parties counsel, she cannot be blamed for it. The delay, thus, was not a ground for interfering with the order of the learned Magistrate, allowing interim maintenance.