PHILEL SINGH Vs. DARSHANA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dated August 3, 1993 whereby order of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Pehowa dated 13.12.1991 refusing to grant any interim maintenance to the petitioners was set aside and each of the petitioner was awarded Rs. 300/- as maintenance per month from the date of filing of the petition.

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner No. 1 filed application for grant of maintenance for herself and on behalf of her minor son Rajesh Kumar, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the allegations in the said petition, the petitioner No. 1 was legally wedded wife of the respondent and petitioner No. 2 was born out of the said wedlock. It was pleaded that the respondent had fallen into bad habits and was keeping a mistress. The petitioner No. 1 tried to dissuade him but she was given beating by the respondent who, totally neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner. She was also given beating on 11th of July, 1987. She got herself medically examined and reported the matter to the police. According to petitioner No. 1, the respondent had wilfully neglected to maintain the petitioners even though he is earning more than Rs. 1500/- per month as lineman from Haryana State Electricity Board, Application for grant of interim maintenance was also moved on the similar grounds, which has been opposed by the respondent. According to the respondent, the petitioners are living separately of their own free will and without any sufficient cause and were not entitled to any maintenance. It was also pleaded that petitioner No. 1 is running a training school for stitching and embroidery from where she is earning a good amount of income and can maintain herself as well as petitioner No. 2 and that the marriage was not solemnised according to Hindu rites.

(3.) INTERIM maintenance has to be granted. Since the respondent and petitioner No. 1 are living separately, the petitioner No. 1 is entitled to get interim maintenance for herself as well as for her minor son. The interim maintenance already granted to the petitioners cannot be said to be excessive. The impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, does not suffer from any legal infirmity nor the same can be said to be per-verse. Since the validity of the marriage has been disputed by the respondent, petitioner No. 1 would be entitled to get the maintenance after furnishing adequate security as far as her own maintenance amount is concerned to the effect that she would abide by the order which would ultimately be passed in those proceedings. Except with this modification, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.