SUDERSHAN KUMAR Vs. DEEPAK ALIAS REENA KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, which is being disposed of at the motion stage after its formal admission, is reflective of a contankerous litigation between a husband and a wife over the claim of arrears of maintenance. To appropriate the controversy, some facts which have been admitted at the bar and are otherwise forthcoming on the record may well be noticed.

(2.) THE wife -respondent has a minor daughter living with her. A claim for maintenance on their behalf was made before the criminal Court at Amritsar under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 1 -2 -1978. After a long and protracted trial, the Court on 30 -4 -1982 allowed the claim of the wife and her minor daughter. Two slabs of maintenance were fixed, at the rate of Rs. 700/ - per mensem from 1 -2 -1978 till 30 -4 -1982 and Rs. 760/ - per mensem onwards. The husband filed Criminal Revision No. 1052 of 1982 in this Court. The same came up before me for admission as also for consideration for the grant of stay. After hearing paties at length 1 had on 9 -8 -1982 passed the following order : - "Heard. Notice. On the question of stay, I have heard the parties at length. It would be just and fair if the petitioner is granted this much interim relief that 'he pays half of the up -to -date arrears of maintenance within a period of two weeks from today and on the payment of which recovery regarding the remaining half would remain stayed pending this petition. With regard to the future maintenance allowance, let the same proportion be maintained ad -interim subject of course, to the condition that he makes payment with regard to half the arrears, as envisaged. Since I have granted stay, 1 would have like this petition to be settled out of turn. But as the matter of fixation rests with my Lord the Chief Justice, the parties may, if so advised, apply to him for the purpose."

(3.) WHILE executing that order, the parties had a fresh bout of differences before Shri R.D. Singal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar. The claim of adjustments as raised by the husband -petitioner was rejected by the learned Magistrate but all the same he granted time to the husband to make payment by 14 -1 -1983 in compliance with my order afore -referred to. Since the husband -petitioner found it adverse to his interest, he has approached this Court again by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even otherwise, there is sufficient room to take the view that the order as such is not inter -locutory (though the learned counsel for the respondent would have it held so) and is capable of revision.