Cy, Mir.ég-§_—a/la W 3%Zub 2131a :- m 3a Emma mg; mm.) W gm? W, By 43 awsf f%n E5511 WW warm W W W W WW? w—Griwm W—W—m (an) I??? o1.WmW,BH37HET m%&fr§%aagmqmw 02.WW,B§113§ m¢WWW(W) o3.ag.m€q§gf%€q1wm,wma& %%WWW(W) WWW§WW WWWW WrW—Wwir.) [U W, 941W a W—W W—W (an) W—Wwamma§m W 482 EERI , w..m,vMV.,...I/7M Jq/ ,_/ U EaWm,m swam (W> mmm wmm mm @ma $aimm mmm SB : Hon’bie Shri Manindra Marian EShrivastava, J. 27-10-201 o .Shri Gautam Khetrapak, co i was requested by this Court to appear as amicus curiae, as the petitioner has a peared §n person. Shri Anurag Jha, counse} for ondents. >/ Heard. This petition under Section Cr.P.C. has been med by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 251’1/201 by which interim maintenance awarded to respondents No.2 and 3 has been co firmed in revision. AesaHing the correctness a vaiidrty of the aforesaid order of dismissar of revision, learned oounsei, for the petitioner argues tnat by way' of interim maintenance, exorbitant amount of Rs.2,0GO/~ each has been awarded without proper consideration of the submissio that the petitioner is out of empioyment as he has resigned from his service sinc 31"”37. Learned counsel fer the petitioner submits that the Court below exce ed its jurisdiction in awarding such a huge amount of maintenance by way of i rim order which is causing serious hardship. The other submission of teamed co nsei for the petitioner is that as the evidence has aiready begun, the Court beiow ought not to have aliowed the application for grant of interim maintenance. H further submits that while considering the application for grant of interim maint nance, the Court below ought to have taken into consideration the evidence whic has come on record in criminal case alleging commission of offence under Sectio 498A and 323 IPC. it is aiso argued that the respondent No.1 hatched conspiracy gainst the petitioner, compelied him to resign from his service and has committed ruelty, therefore, respondent No.2 and 3 are not entitled to maintenance. Last su mission of learned counsei for the petitioner is that eariier, the Court did not pass order of interim maintenance and proceeded to record evidence and therefore it s not justified to take cognizance of another application for grant of interim mainte ance. l ism; Wu rents —FS/1’?47;z/2oi o *1 ,oo,ooo. \ u e p 2 n n e a a mmm ammamia? WWW ho'2,_ mm Wm $aim3¢fa¥i On the other hand, submissim of learned Gounsei fur respondents is that no juris‘dictiona! illegality or perversity been committed by the learned Courts below in awarding interim maintenance and the order passed in revisian as the object and purpose of awarding interim mainten noe is to prevent the children from destitution and vagrancyg-He further submits hat as the marriage is not disputed and the petitioner is able to maintain his wi‘e and children award of interim maintenance is fully justifed He further submits tha lowing to the present pnce index as alao the means available to the petitioner a d of interim marntenanoe cannot be said to be unjust The marriage between the p rties is not disputed. By the impugned order, learned Court below has upheld int rim maintenance only to the children who are residing with the wife — respondent N .‘l. There is no order placed before this Court to show that earl'iet, application for g ant of interim maintenance was ever rejected. The grounds which have been urge are required to be considered by the learned Magistrate after recording evidence of the parties. it cannot be ignored that the application for grant of maintenance as remained pending for almost three years. under these circumstances, ard of interim maintenance and amount of interim maihtenance does not warr nt any interference by this Court. However, taking into consideration that the ma er has remained pending for quite sometime it rs directed that the learned Court bel w shail make alt endeavor to iinally decide the maintenance proceedings within a od of three months from the date of 'eceipt of copy of this order ln so far as a rears of interim maintenance are concerned subject to applicant depositing Rs 30 OGI- Within a period of one month the balance amount shall be payable in accord nce With the iinal order to be passed by the Magistrate. With the aforesaid observatio s, the petition is iinally disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge mam: aim: am, mineria whit—mow —1 oo,ooo. 3 , h w ' w p r