Hukum Singh Vs. Smt. Satya Bhama - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/505794
SubjectFamily;Criminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnFeb-07-1995
Case NumberCrl. Revn. No. 65 of 1993
JudgeN.P. Singh, J.
Reported inII(1995)DMC502
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 125
AppellantHukum Singh
RespondentSmt. Satya Bhama
Appellant AdvocateS.L. Kochar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateNeena Khera, Adv.
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
- - 5. it is well settled that the order for payment of interim maintenance allowance can be passed only in the case of great hardship.n.p. singh, j.1. this revision application is directed against the order dated 1.10.1992 passed by the addl. sessions judge, sakti, district bilaspur, whereby he passed an order for interim maintenance allowance to the non-applicant, reversing the order of the judicial magistrate passed in a proceeding under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure.2. the non-applicant/wife of the applicant moved an application under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure before the judicial magistrate, sakti for grant of maintenance. pursuant to the notice the applicant appeared and contended that the application under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure was not maintainable as the non-applicant was living with her son and she was being maintained by her son, who is in possession of 40 acres of land of the applicant. the learned judicial magistrate on consideration of the evidence of the parties rejected the application for grant of interim maintenance allowance to the non-applicant. as against that the non-applicant preferred revision before the sessions judge, who allowed interim maintenance allowance to the non-applicant reversing the order of the judicial magistrate.3. mr. s.l. kochar, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been deserted by his wife and son, who have grabbed the entire 40 acres of land of the applicant. an application filed by the applicant against his son for grant of maintenance allowance to him is also pending before the judicial magistrate.4. ku. neena khera, learned counsel for the non-applicant has admitted that the son of the non-applicant is in possession of 20 acres of land and the non-applicant is residing with him since last 20 years.5. it is well settled that the order for payment of interim maintenance allowance can be passed only in the case of great hardship.6. the learned judicial magistrate has held that there was no case of emergency for grant of interim maintenance allowance to the non-applicant. the addl. sessions judge in his order has, however, overlooked this aspect and has wrongly allowed the interim maintenance allowance to the non-applicant.7. for the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained. accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision application is allowed.
Judgment:

N.P. Singh, J.

1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 1.10.1992 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Bilaspur, whereby he passed an order for interim maintenance allowance to the non-applicant, reversing the order of the Judicial Magistrate passed in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The non-applicant/wife of the applicant moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate, Sakti for grant of maintenance. Pursuant to the notice the applicant appeared and contended that the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not maintainable as the non-applicant was living with her son and she was being maintained by her son, who is in possession of 40 acres of land of the applicant. The learned Judicial Magistrate on consideration of the evidence of the parties rejected the application for grant of interim maintenance allowance to the non-applicant. As against that the non-applicant preferred revision before the Sessions Judge, who allowed interim maintenance allowance to the non-applicant reversing the order of the Judicial Magistrate.

3. Mr. S.L. Kochar, learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been deserted by his wife and son, who have grabbed the entire 40 acres of land of the applicant. An application filed by the applicant against his son for grant of maintenance allowance to him is also pending before the Judicial Magistrate.

4. Ku. Neena Khera, learned Counsel for the non-applicant has admitted that the son of the non-applicant is in possession of 20 acres of land and the non-applicant is residing with him since last 20 years.

5. It is well settled that the order for payment of interim maintenance allowance can be passed only in the case of great hardship.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate has held that there was no case of emergency for grant of interim maintenance allowance to the non-applicant. The Addl. Sessions Judge in his order has, however, overlooked this aspect and has wrongly allowed the interim maintenance allowance to the non-applicant.

7. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision application is allowed.