^ § f.^ sf "ta'..- ''<! ..- ""'•^^'^i."^-" / '^^ {yy PBTITIOSSBR Sheikh Baligaud.dm S/o Sheikh Kainaruddiii, aged about 87 years, Occiipation Cable Operato aad Insura33.cc Agent, Resident of Near Satar Masjid, Bhusawal (Maliarashti-a). <ft Siut. Rijwana Fatiina W/o Sheikh Baligauddin, aged about 25 years. Mohainiaad Hussaiii (Saifi, S/o Sheikh BaHgauddin, aged about 1 year and 4 luon.ths through nataral guardiaa laotber Snit. Rijwana Fa'uma W/o Sheildi Baligauddin Bofh residents of Behiad Masjid, Saruay Nagar, Tahsil & District Rsjpur (C.G.). PETITIGN UNDER SECTION 482 OF THB CODB OF CmMINAL 2. Q Present:- Sbri Suml Sah.u, couiisel for the applicaat. This petition is directed agamst the order dated 20/8/2008 passed by the First Additioual Principal Judge, Fainily Court, Raipur ia M.J.C. No. 254/08 whereby First Additional Prmclpal Jzidge, Faimly Court has directed that amount of iatenm inaiatenance paid by fhe applicaiit for which non-applicants were not entitled in terins of fhe order dated 25/6/2008 in crimiual revision No. 522/2005 passed by this Court applicaat raay adjudicate thetr claLm before fhe coiapetent Court. Order is chaUenged on fhe ground that iaterim. niamtenance was awarded by the Court below and same was quashed vide order dated 30/6/2008 by fhis Court. At tlie tiiae ofpassing oforder by this Court applicant had already paid Rs. 46,725/- to tlie non-applicatits which <? tliey had not retumed to fhe appUcant. Leamed counsel for tlie applicaat further submits that final order dated 9/8/2007 has been passed ia wh.ich bofti the parties have entered in to comproniise aad applicant is required to pay fhe inaiutenaace of Rs. 2,750/- per laonth to the non-applicaats which he is payiag regularly aad he fartlier subiaits that applicaat is a working as Insuraace Departttient aad as a result of order passed by ihis Court, the department is regularly deducting ftie acaount of m.aiutenaiice froni his pay. 3. Leamed couasel for the appUcant further subinits that excess amount of iaterim iiiaiatenaace be retiiraed to fheia or same shatl be adjusted ui fh.e final amount of fhe inauitenauce payable by fhe applicant. 4. It reveals from. fhe order impugned that appUcant has paid the interini m.aintenauce to the non-applicaats aad sam.e is outstaadiag against fhe non-appticauts. The non-applicants have only objected before fhe Court below that fhis Coiirt has not directed to retuiTi the amouat of in.teriin luaiiitenaiice already paid. 5. It is not disputed that maia.tenaiice has been awarded against fhe applicaat aad he is requu-ed to pay the inonfhly amoiuit .of laaiatenaace of Rs. 2,750/- per m.0nth to fhe non-appUcauts. The amount of iuteriiii niamteaance already paid is outstauding agaiust fhe non-appUcants therefore, ia fhe iaterest ofjustice it is directed fhat the Uabflity of payinent of raauiteaaace by the applicaitt to non- appUcants shaU firstly be adjusted against fhe outstaadiug aiaount i.e. aEaount of iaterim. inaintenance paid by the applicant aad after adjustment of fhe aforesaid aniount, the applicant will pay fhe utonfhly aiaount of inaiutenaace to the non-applicauts regularly. The petition is disposed of accordm.gly. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge f7-