CRM No. M 15445 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 15445 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.05.2010 Suresh Kumar alias Rakesh ........ Petitioner Versus Pinki .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. N S Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 02.03.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Respondent Pinki filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of interim maintenance before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat. Vide order dated 11.06.2009, the learned JMIC, Sonepat allowed the aforesaid application by granting Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance to Respondent Piniki during the pendency of the petition from the date of filing of the application. Rs. 5000/- was also granted to her towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgement passed by the JMIC Sonepat, the petitioner filed revision petition. The same was partly allowed by the Additional CRM No. M 15445 of 2010 2 Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide judgement dated 02.03.2010 and the order dated 11.06.2009 passed by the JMIC, Sonepat was modified to the extend that the respondent is entitled for interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. Still aggrieved, the present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the Judgement dated 02.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. While challenging the aforesaid judgement, the only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly, the respondent was the wife of his brother. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner had entered into a Kareva marriage with the respondent is incorrect. A civil suit is pending in Delhi, in which, the status of the marriage is yet to be determined. Thus, the interim maintenance cannot be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. The prayer of the petitioner read as under:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of the submissions made above, the present petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 02.03.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat may kindly be set aside and the maintenance allowance awarded in favour of the petitioner may kindly be set aside in the interest of justice and equity.” No prayer for setting aside the order dated 11.06.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat is made. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the trial Court CRM No. M 15445 of 2010 3 had granted Rs.4,000/- as interim maintenance and Rs.5,000/- was given as litigation expenses. The revisional Court modified the order by reducing the amount to Rs.2000/- as interim maintenance and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. Thus, no grievance can be said to have been caused to the present petitioner with the above modification. In case, the prayer of the petitioner is accepted and the order dated 02.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat is set aside, the petitioner would rather have to pay Rs.4000/- as interim maintenance and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Thus, the very prayer of the petitioner is innocuous. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The second revision is not maintainable. The present petition is nothing but a second revision under the garb of under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can no doubt be exercised in special circumstances wherein injustice has been done. Moreover, the petitioner has not been able to point out as to how the impugned order dated 02.03.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat has resulted injustice or misuse of process of law. In fact, the judgement dated 11.06.2009 passed by the JMIC, Sonepat stands modified in his favour. Even on merits, the argument that the marriage of the petitioner is not proved, has no merit. The JMIC, Sonepat relied on the judgement of Apex Court rendered in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Biduyut Prave Dixit reported AIR 1999 SC 3348, to conclude that the standard of proof of marriage in proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code. CRM No. M 15445 of 2010 4 At present, the parties have also been restrained from re- marrying and as such, the grant of interim maintenance is fair and just in the circumstances. Since the civil suit is still pending in Delhi and the status of the marriage is yet to be decided, the grant of meagre amount of Rs.2000/- as interim maintenance and Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses to the respondent will in fact, meet the ends of justice. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 24.05.2010 mohan