GOKUL SIRGH Vs. MAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The question which has been canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner in this application under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is-as to whether the Criminal Court Wearing a petition under, section 125 Criminal procedure Code can pass an interim order during, the pendency of those proceeding. The learned Magistrate has stated in the order dated July 15, 1985 that the application under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code is pending since December 12, 1981 and the petitioners husband is unnecessarily delaying the proceedings. The matter has remained pending for the evidence of the petitioner's husband side October 15, 1984 and in a period order months the husband examined himself and has not produced his evidence inspite several opportunities, but be was still seeking time for proceeding his evidence. In these circumstances, the trial Magistrate passed an interim order granting provisional maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 250/-per month.

(3.) It is not necessary to go into the broad question raised by learned counsel in the facts and circumstances of the case: The trial Magistrate, in the facts and circumstances when the proceedings under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code have remained pending for more than four years, passed the order fixing a provisional maintenance. This Court need not interfere in its power under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code with the order passed by the trial Magistrate in the present case, looking to the facts and circumstances referred to above.