ANIL KUMAR JUNEJA Vs. SANGITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL out efforts were made in this case for a compromise between the parties. The petitioner-husband initially agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards maintenance of his wife by way of permanent alimony as also his minor female child. He later backed out by saying that he is not able to arrange for the money. An offer made to him to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- now and the remaining amount of Rs. 75,000/- by way of instalments spanning over three years was also wholly unacceptable to him. It is in these circumstances that the matter has to be heard on merits for decision of this petition wish is against the order passed by the Magistrate concerned allowing an amount of Rs. 800/- per month to the respondent-wife and a minor child as interim maintenance in an application preferred by the latter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE sole point urged by the petitioner who is present in person in Court challenging the order aforesaid is that even though it was proved by overwhelming evidence that the respondent-wife was employed as a teacher in Shishushala School, Rewari and was getting an amount of Rs. 700/- per month, the fact aforesaid was ignored by the Magistrate concerned on a wholly untenable ground that the said employment was not on permanent basis. There appears to be substance in the solitary contention raised by the petitioner but in view of the Court the same in the peculiar circumstances of this case would not come to his rescue, thus, not resulting into substantial decrease in the amount. The Magistrate concerned in considered view of this Court ought to have taken into account that the respondent-wife was an employee getting an overall salary of Rs. 700/- per month and by taking into account her income, interim order for maintenance for her and child should have been passed. However, the issue was sidetracked by simply observing that she is employed on temporary basis. Suffice it to say that an order passed under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code is not a final order and it can be varied if the circumstances change. If the respondent-wife was to be shown the exit door in her employment, it was then within her rights to ask for and within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to re-determine the maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but in any case the factum of wife being employed could not be simply ignored.