Criminal Misc. No. M-9420 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-9420 of 2008 Date of decision:- 14.5.2008. Pawan Kumar Verma ...Petitioner. Versus Harjit Kaur ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D.K. Jangra , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Roopam Jain, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dated 25.2.2008 upholding the same in the revision, filed by the petitioner. Briefly the facts are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.6.2002 and they remained together only for a period of about two weeks. Though there are allegations and counter allegations as to whether the respondent left the matrimonial home of her own or was shunted out, but this Court is not recording any finding thereon. The present proceedings have arisen out of application filed by respondent for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in which the submission is that the courts below without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner to Criminal Misc. No. M-9420 of 2008 2 the effect that the respondent-wife is living in adultery as after separating from the petitioner, she had been residing with one Major Singh Sandhu with the changed name Manjit Kaur and out of their illegitimate relation a daughter was born in PGI on 2.4.2006, granted maintenance to the respondent. Keeping these facts in view the respondent was not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned orders passed by the courts below show that the same are interim in nature. The trial Court is yet to opine finally as to whether the allegations made by the petitioner regarding his wife living in adultery are correct or not and also as to whether she is entitled to maintenance or not. As an interim measure, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month from the date of application dated 3.12.2003, vide order dated 23.10.2007. As informed by learned counsel for the parties, the respondent has already concluded her evidence before the trial Court and the matter is fixed for evidence of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that justice in the present case will be met in case the recovery of the arrears of maintenance payable to the respondent by the petitioner is stayed, subject to furnishing of security to the satisfaction of the trial Court. This is for the reason that in case, the case setup by the petitioner is found to be correct and ultimately, the Court did not grant any maintenance to the respondent, it may be difficult for the petitioner to recover back the amount paid. The security shall be of the kind which will result in payment of amount to the respondent immediately in case the plea set up by the petitioner is ultimately rejected and the claim of Criminal Misc. No. M-9420 of 2008 3 the respondent is accepted. From May, 2008 onwards, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as an interim maintenance fixed by the learned trial Court regularly to the respondent till such time the trial Court decides the petition finally. On conclusion of the trial, the respondent shall be at liberty to take the amount from the security so furnished, in case her application is allowed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. May 14, 2008 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ritu-II JUDGE