RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. ANEETA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Sessions Judge, Jammu has made a reference to this court recommending that the interim maintenance granted by the trial court to the respondents herein and to another girl for whom it was not claimed in the petition, be set aside.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this controversy lie in brief compass: Respondent is the wife of the petitioner herein. She has filed an application under section 488 Cr. P. C. before the trial court on 5.3.1985. Ancillary to the said application a prayer was made for payment of interim maintenance on the ground that respondent herein and her minor daughters were without any support, therefore the petitioner be asked to pay them interim maintenance. The application for interim maintenance seems to have been accompained by an affidavit of the respondent which was rebutted by the petitioner herein. The order of interim maintenance was made in favour of the respondent and her two minor daughters on 4 -8 -1986.

(3.) LEARNED Sessions Judge has pointed out that on 4 -3 -1986 the respondent herein had presented an application for grant of interim mointenance and in support of her claim relied on a Supreme Court authority Savitri Vs - Govind Singh Rawat 1985 (4) Supreme Court Cases 337. petitioner had contested this application on the ground that the respondent wjfe was working as a teacher in the Ashoka High School. The respondent had also filed a certificate from the same school to the effect that she was no longer serving in the said school as teacher. After taking a prima facie view of the matter, the learned Magistrate ordered interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/ - P. M. to the wife and at the rate of Rs. 100/ -per month to each of her two children.