IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C 482 Criminal Misc. Application No. 01 of 2003 Amarjeet Bharti. …..…Applicant. Versus Km. Nisha and another. …….Respondents. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. P.S. Bohara, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 2. By way of present petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.12.2002 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh whereby petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 400 per month as interim maintenance to Km. Nisha – daughter. Brief facts of the case are that initially Misc. Criminal Case No. 7 of 1996 under section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by Smt. Shakuntala Bharti claiming maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter Km. Nisha. In criminal case no. 7 of 1996 parties entered into amicable settlement and compromise was filed before the court concerned on 15.12.1996. As per the settlement / compromise it was agreed between the parties that petitioner herein would 2 pay Rs. 30,000/- as one time permanent alimony for the wife and minor daughter. When this compromise dated 15.12.1996 placed before Lok Adalat, it was agreed between the parties and observed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh that minor daughter would be entitled for all the expenses of her education and marriage from her father i.e. petitioner. Yet another application under section 127 of the Code was filed by the respondent through her mother specifically pleaded in paragraph 5 thereof that now minor daughter has attained the age to get education and for her education purpose she is entitled for Rs. 3000/- per month towards fees, dress, clothes, books, stationery, tuition, room rent and nutritional food. This application was moved on 12.04.2001, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide impugned order granted interim enhanced maintenance at Rs. 400/- per month on this application. The main question before this court is as to whether interim enhanced maintenance can be granted during the pendency of application under section 127 of the Code. Proviso of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the interim maintenance during the pendency of application under section 125 of the Code. However, section 127 of the Code does not provide for any interim enhancement, variation or alteration in maintenance already granted under section 125 of the Code, during the pendency of application under section 127 of the Code. Legislature at its wisdom does not provide any provision for interim order during the 3 pendency of section 127 application. Reason seems to be obvious. In the matter of seeking maintenance under section 125 of the code, source of bread and butter has to be kept in mind during the pendency of the application under section 125 of the Code, while during the pendency of application under section 127 of the Code there is no urgent need to vary, alter or enhance the maintenance. In view of the observation made hereinabove, impugned order is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. In view of this present petition / application is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.12.2002 is set aside. However, learned Trial Court is directed to decide original application under section 127 of Cr.P.C. on its own merit preferably within six months from today. (Alok Singh, J.) 24.11.2009 SKS