MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. SHIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.5.2004 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed an interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000.00 per month by the petitioner to his wife Smt. Shimla, the non-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on 15.11.2002 a divorce decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on the ground that his wife had deserted him. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, under the provisions of Sec. 125(4) of the Code Criminal Procedure (henceforth referred to as 'the Cr.P.C for short), the wife is not entitled to any maintenance in case she has been divorced on the ground of desertion by her. Therefore, he has argued that she would not be entitled even to an interim maintenance.

(2.) However, learned counsel for the non-petitioner has argued that the provisions of Sec. 125(4) of the Crimial P.C. would be operative only in case of final maintenance and not in the case of interim maintenance. Therefore, he has supported the impugned order.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned order. Sec. 125( 1) reads as under:-