•,.^^ss "'y^- M--' 'etitloner sponaes' CrM.P. Nn. 1'!Anf50Sfi Maniram Sahu, S/o Mansharam Sahu. aged 40 years, °/o Vil'age Ghanadih, P.0. Banssara. Te". Bemetara. u'sfl. Durs9 'fhhsn-ic-arh'. \ ii^-i.^i-^^.—.i '^. Smt. Anusuiva. W/c Manirar" Sahu, saed ^^ vs^rs. F^/o Vill^as Qhsnscllcn. ofsssnt adaress : Nan, s-'.'.J. i-'endritarai, l snsi; Bemetara, Dls-t. Durq tCWnatissgsstri MiSCELLANEOUS CRilfliNAL CASE UNDERSECTiON 482, CODE O! .^^I^^JAI si^^fasns is&^ ^ST-^ tuiF »t.aau s .13 tiiT~.»a .! i 'i-'^lf •'af il &riF ^^ i 'li = a ur s °n' ?%. ' Hon'bie Mr. T.F. Sharnia, u.i i-'reser.t: Shri Sanjay S. Agrawai, counsel for the petltioner. (Passed on 18tn Juiy, 2008) Thls petitlon is directed aflainst the order dated 11.4.2008 oassed by the AdcSitional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Bemetara, in Criminai Revision No. 58/2007, .affirming ths order of interim maintenance dated 20.8.2007 ps.ssed by the Judicia! iVlagistrate First Ciass, Eemetara, in Crimma! MJ.C. No, 05/2005 wtiereby the iearned Judicia! Magistrate i--irst C!ass, Bemetara awarded tiis malntenance of Rs. 500/- per month te the resoondent herein. 2. The order 's chalienged on trte sround ffiat wl&out any existence of emsrgency. the courts &e!ow have awarded the intenm maintenancs to the respondsnt. Same Is iiiegal anci againstthe sefiied pnnc'pie of isw. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitionsr anci perussd the order imDucsned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the courts beiow have awarded the Interim maintenance of Rs. 500/- Der month without any findlng t'nat there is ernergency. 5- Learned counsel for the petitloner Is placed reiiance upon ths jucisment of the Hicih Court of Madhva Pradesh in ths case of Hukum Sii-iflh v. Smt ^isfvi-E Rh^rrsTs in whifh if hffl^ h^lH thst i'^i^rir^i m%3n^ ?;nf*:<^ f^n f)niv hi% arsnted in case of areat nardship. 6. rrom the perusai of the orders of the courts beiow, It is clear that on the basis of entitlement for maintenance of ieflaiiy wedded wife and neslects on the oart ofthe pet'iioner, an order of interim malntenance was passed. 7. After the case of Hukum Singh's (supra). order datsd 7.2.1995, the orovisions of section 125 ofthe Code of Criminai Procedure, 1973 is amended Ut 5 and another groviso has t'een 50 of 2001 with effect from 24.9.2001 asded which reads as under:- "XXX XXX XX Provided further that the Masistrate may, during the psndency of the proceeding regarding monthly a'iowance for the maintsnance unasr this sub-section, order sucn person t-o'msks 3 ni.onthv s'llowsnc-s for th9 ."itefni n'lBlnt'snancs of nis wiTe or sucn cniia, latnef or molner, aRa ine expenses OT sueh proceeding whteh the Magistrats consisers reasonabie, •snd to D2V ths ssnis to such c'sfson ss th©IVIsolstrstQ rn^v Trom time to cme cjffsci: XXX XXX XXX". r.(. 8. After amendment, the petitioner is requsred to ai'ege and siiow prlma facie that she Is enffiied for maintenance and the respondent Is navmfl sufficient means, not malntaining her. According to order impugned, aTi-er teking Into consideration the atlegation, iearned couns bsiow have awardsd the interim maintenancs. The courts beiow have not committed any !]iega!ity or Inflrmlh' In awaraing the interim maintenance. ! do not flnd any substancs in ment. ' S. Consequentiy, the getition beinfl devoid dismissed and It is herebv dismissed. of merit is liable to bs Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge