1 S.B.Cr.Misc.Petition No.1590/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.1590/2008 Madan Lal Vs. Smt.Pushpa @ Pappu & Ors. Date of Order : : 14/09/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Raman Lal for Mr.P.N.Mohanani, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajendra Charan, for the non-petitioners. BY THE COURT: By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the order dated 1.3.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara (for short, “the Revisional Court” hereinafter) as also the order dated 24.9.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.1, Bhilwara (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) have been challenged by the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by the trial Court as well as Revisional Court. It appears that the non-petitioners filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly 2 S.B.Cr.Misc.Petition No.1590/2008 allowance of maintenance before the trial court. It has not been disputed that the non-petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and non-petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are the minor daughter and son born out of the said wed-lock. During the pendency of the main application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on a request of non-petitioners, the trial by order dated 24.9.2007, granted the interim monthly allowance of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month in favour of non-petitioner No.1-SmtPushpa @ Pauua and Rs.250 per month each in favour of non-petitioner Nos.2 and 3 respectively. On a revision, the revisional court did not find any error in the order passed by the trial court. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by two courts below. In my view, both the courts below were justified in passing the orders impugned. Even otherwise, the grant of interim monthly allowance of maintenance is at the stage of pre-recording the evidence and parties are yet to lead the evidence. I do not find any error or illegality in the orders impugned warranting interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court. The instant criminal misc. petition is, therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK 3 S.B.Cr.Misc.Petition No.1590/2008 S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.STAY PETITION NO.2669/2008 IN S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.1590/2008 Date of Order : : 14/09/2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Raman Lal for Mr.P.N.Mohanani, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajendra Charan, for the non-petitioners. Since the criminal miscellaneous petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK