(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code o ( Criminal Procedure against the interim order of maintenance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind wherein he had granted ad interim maintenance of Rs. 200/- to the wife and a sum of Rs. 100/- to the child. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ia liable to be set aside on two grounds, firstly that there is no provision for granting ad interim maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the Code) and secondly that the trial Court hag made a reference in its order that there is evidence available on the record that the respondent-wife has refused to reside with the petitioner and that thcregpondents have sufficient means to maintain themselves. The learned counsel for tbe petitioner has cited Sumer Chand alias Sumer Nath v. Sandhuran Rani and Ors. , 1987 (2) Recent Criminal Report 357 in defence of his plea that there is no provision for granting ad interim maintenance under the Code. So far as the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned it is without any fores particularly in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Savitri v. Gobind Singh Rawal, 1986 (1) Chandigarh Law Reporter, 331. The short question before the Supreme Court for consideration was that as to whether the Magistrate before whom an application is made Under Section 125 of the Code can make an interim order directing the person against whom the application is made under that Section to pay reasonable maintenance to the applicant concerned pending disposal of the application.
(2.) THE question was finally answered is afflrmity and it was held by the Supreme Court as under :
(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, thus, rejected. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also without any force in so far as the validity of an order of interim maintenance is concerned. This matter can be decided on merits after the parties are given adequate opportunity to lead their evidence as the impugned order is an interlocutory order and relates to grant of interim mainlenance only and fhil matter will be looked into by the trial Court at the time when question concerning award of maintenance to the wife as well as to the cilild is finally decided.