IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 248 of 2007 SITA RAM PODDAR Versus TEZNI DEVI ----------- 2. 18.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the opposite party. In the opinion of this court while there can be no two views that in a proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. the Court can always grant interim maintenance pending final decision in the maintenance case so filed by the wife, but there must be at least some evidence to enable the Court to record two findings, namely, that the marriage was solemnized between the parties and that there is a paying capacity for the husband on the basis of which an amount of interim maintenance shall be paid. While in this case there are no doubt overwhelming evidence to show that the petitioner being Railway employee has at least this much of income from which the opposite party, the alleged wife can be supported and that a sum of Rs. 2000/-, 1700/- by way of monthly interim maintenance and Rs. 300/- by way of cost of litigation per month can not be said to be excessive but taking peculiar facts of this case where right from the beginning the 2 petitioner has been denying the marriage, it appears to this Court that the court below in stead of passing an order for interim maintenance ought to have straightway decided the maintenance case itself especially when the evidence of the parties have already been concluded on 27.4.2006. As a matter of fact it is the petitioner, who has been responsible in causing delay in disposal of the maintenance case because on 25.5.2006 after closing of the evidence he had come out with an application for further examination of three witnesses. Counsel for the opposite party, however, has pointed out that a civil revision, C.R. No. 949/2006 assailing the order of closure of evidence and refusing examination of further three witnesses on behalf of the petitioner has already been withdrawn by the petitioner by an order dated 11.8.2008 and consequently there is now no impediment for competition of the argument and delivery of judgment in the main maintenance case itself. Considering the fact that the petitioner has at least been responsible for delaying the disposal of the proceedings from 25.5.2006 to this day, largely on account of awaiting the result of two civil revision applications, he must pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- by way 3 of cost to the opposite party which will not be taken to be a proof that the opposite party, the petitioner in the maintenance case, is the wife of the petitioner herein. Had he in fact not filed first civil revision application, C.R. No. 949/2006 the maintenance case itself could have been already decided by now. This Court would, however direct that the order of interim maintenance for the time being should be kept in abeyance and the maintenance case itself should be disposed of within a period of six months from today. It is made clear that the Court below will proceed to her the argument on day to day basis and thereafter would deliver its judgment within the aforementioned time. It is also made clear that in case the maintenance case of the wife-opposite party is allowed she would be also entitled for payment of entire amount of interim maintenance in terms of the impugned order. With the aforementioned observation and direction this civil revision application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/