1 Kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.349/2008 Nital Moses Gaware. ....Applicant V/s Moses Robin Gaware and another. ....Respondents ............. Mr.Aslam Khan, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.S.M.Khaire, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Ms.S.V.Gajre, APP for the State. ............. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. Dated :- 08th May, 2009 PC :- 1 Rule. The learned APP waives service for the State of Maharashtra. The learned counsel for the first Respondent waives service. Taken up for final disposal. 2 This revision Applicant takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. By the said order a petition filed by the Applicant for herself and on behalf of minor daughter for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Code”) has been partly allowed by directing the first Respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month to the minor daughter. This Revision Application has been preferred for challenging that part of the order by which the maintenance has been denied to the revision Applicant/wife. The prayer in the application is to grant monthly maintenance to the Applicant at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month. 3 After the application was argued for some time, the learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent/husband pointed out that for various reasons the first Respondent has not contested the application under Section 125 of the said Code. On instructions of the first Respondent, who is personally present in the Court, he states 2 that if the impugned order is set aside with a liberty to the first Respondent to contest the application under Section 125 of the said Code, the first Respondent without prejudice to his rights and contentions is willing to pay interim maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month each both to the Applicant and to the minor child till the disposal of the application under Section 125 of the said Code. He stated that the time of two months be granted to deposit the arrears. 4 It is true that the first Respondent has not contested the application under Section 125 of the said Code. The justification given by the learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent is reasonable. If the order of remand is passed even the Applicant will get an opportunity to lead further evidence in the matter. The Applicant and the minor daughter will be protected as the learned counsel for the first Respondent has made a statement that the first Respondent will pay interim maintenance as stated above. 5 Hence, I pass the following order:- (i) The impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2008 is quashed and set aside and Petition No.E-432/2007 is restored to the file of the Family Court at Pune. (ii)The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 22nd June, 2009 at 11:00 AM. It will be open for the first Respondent/husband to file his reply/ written statement to the application under Section 125 of the said Code on the date of appearance. The Family Court will not grant any further time to the first Respondent to file the reply/ written statement. (iii)Pending the final disposal of the application under Section 125 of the said Code, the first Respondent/husband will pay monthly interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- each to the Applicant/wife and the minor daughter w.e.f. 20th September, 2007. Time of two months from today is granted to deposit the arrears of maintenance till 30th April, 2009. (iv)The first Respondent will pay the interim maintenance amount from May, 2009 onwards on or before 15th day of every calender month. (v) It will be open for the Applicant to lead further evidence in addition to the evidence already adduced by her. It will be open for the first Respondent to cross-examine the Applicant and other witnesses, if any, examined by her. The 3 Family Court will permit the first Respondent to adduce evidence. (vi)The application under Section 125 of the said Code shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31st December, 2009. (vii)It is made clear that, all contentions of the parties are kept open and the application under Section 125 of the said Code will be decided by the Family Court without being influenced by the impugned order. (viii)The revision application is partly allowed in the above terms with no orders as to costs. JUDGE