1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Applcn. No. 473 of 2009 Hem Chandra Parihar S/O Ram Singh Parihar R/O Village Nandi gaon, post & Tehsil Bageshwar, District Bageshwar ………. Petitioner Versus Smt. Pushpa Parihar W/O Shri Hem Chandra Parihar, R/O at present father Shri Gusin Singh Mehta Near Stadium, Khtyari Almora District Almora …………..Respondent Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioner Shri Harsh Vardhan Sah, Advocate present for the respondent Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing and the order dated 21.04.2009, passed by Sessions 2 Judge, Almora in criminal revision no. 25 of 2008, Hem Chandra Parihar vs. Smt Pushpa Parihar. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married to the respondent on 02.06.2004. However, due to the matrimonial discord, since 12.06.2004, they started living separately. It appears that the respondent Smt. Pushpa Parihar moved an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month, she pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself. She further pleaded that the petitioner has means to pay the maintainance and neglected to pay the same. The trial court vide its order dated 16.09.2008 granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month, and further directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1000/- as expenses and further directed to pay Rs. 100/- per month to the respondent Pushpa Parihar towards the travelling expenses on every date fixed in the case. Against said order dated 16.09.2008, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, criminal revision no. 25 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of vide impugned order dated 21.04.2009 by learned Sessions Judge, Almora, who upheld the order relating to litigation expenses and reduced interim maintenance to Rs. 1000/- per month. He further set aside the order directing to pay Rs. 100/- per date towards travelling expenses. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has no jurisdiction to award the litigation expenses at the stage of granting interim maintenance, in an application 3 under section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is contended that the revisional court had committed further error of law by upholding said order. As to the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month, it is apparent from the impugned order that the same was directed to be paid after taking consent of learned counsel for the parties. (5) In the above circumstances, the dispute in the narrow compass is relating to only Rs. 1000/- towards litigation expenses at the stage of awarding interim maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. Said section does not empower the court to award litigation expenses at the stage of granting interim maintenance. That being so the impugned order to the extent it upholds the direction to pay Rs. 1000/- towards litigation expenses is liable to be quashed. (6) Accordingly this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is disposed of with the direction that the order of the trial court to pay litigation expenses amounting Rs. 1000/- and its affirmation by the revisional court is here to be quashed. The remaining order, directing the petitioner to pay Rs 1000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent, is not interfered with. Dt.07.4.2010 NP (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 4