1 S.B.Cr.Misc.Petition No.744/09 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.744/09 (FIROJ KHAN @ BITTU V. THE STATE OF RAJ. & OTHERS.) DATE OF ORDER ::: 09/11/2009 HON'BLE MR. C. M. TOTLA, J. Mr. Javed Moyal, for Petitioner. Mrs. Chandra Lekha, PP, for the State. Mr. Haider Agha, for Respondents. Learned counsel for both sides submitted that the petition stands decided with decision of stay application. Therefore, heard contentions of the learned counsel in the main petition. Per arguments and impugned order, it appears that respondent No.2 claiming maintenance for her and minor son R3 initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against petitioner on 10.1.01 stating him to be her husband. Application for interim maintenance is decided by the learned Judge by impugned order of 20.2.09 and maintenance Rs.900/- for her and Rs.600/- for her minor child total Rs.1500/-. Challenged is above order of interim maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that (1) on parties their personal law is applicable, (2) divorced R1 in August, 06 and parties also agreed and jointly executed agreement on 3.8.06, (3) liability of petitioner for maintenance in any contingency cannot extend beyond “iddat” period, (4) “mehar” also stands paid which apparent from agreement dated 3.8.06. (5) On R1's application, declared is divorce by petitioner to R-1 vide decree dated 20.5.09 of learned Family Judge. Submitting copy, stated that decree of divorce is. Submitted that as such maintenance cannot be ever per S.125 (4) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for respondent argued that (i) order is for interim maintenance, (ii) raised questions all are factual one, (iii) established is the law that responsibility of maintenance can be over only if re-married or provisions of maintenance for duration beyond 'iddat' period made. In support of contentions, learned counsel cited authority II (2001) DMC 714 (SC), Danial Latifi & Another v. Union of India. Considering rival contentions, gone through the impugned order. Question raised also involves elements of facts disputed . Order 2 S.B.Cr.Misc.Petition No.744/09 impugned is of Feb.09 and decree per copy is of May,09. In order specific is mentioned that this interim maintenance amount payable till “re- marriage or decision of main application.” As proceedings on main application is to be so refraining to elaborate alleged facts and controversy, lest it may affect proceedings suffice to observe that regarding effect of decree dated 20.5.09, petitioner can raise objections before the trial Court itself. No interference in order impugned, particularly when it is for interim maintenance, is warranted in this. Lastly, learned counsel for petitioner requests for directions of expeditious disposal. For this, it is mentioned that the learned Judge may take appropriate efforts for early disposal, considering nature and number nature of other cases etc. pending . The petition stands disposed of. (C. M. TOTLA), J. scd