JAI SINGH Vs. MANISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is rather an unusual case where the right of the petitioner to cross -examine the witnesses of the opposite party has been closed by the order of the Court only because he had stated that he was not in a position to comply with the orders imposing interim maintenance upon him.

(2.) THE petitioner is the husband and was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/ - per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the present petition, i.e. with effect from 3.10.2013 till the disposal of the main petition in proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It appears that application seeking execution of the aforesaid order and the evidence of the respondent in the main petition was fixed on the same date, i.e. 25.6.2015 when the trial Magistrate passed the following order:

(3.) LORD Herschell LC in Browne v. Dunn, (1893) 6 R 67 clearly elucidates the principles, underlined those provisions and the same reads thus: