Crl. Misc. No. M-23934 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-23934 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 18, 2010 Mohan Lal ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioner. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of the order dated 19.12.2009, passed by the Additional Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha. Heard. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference is made out. Respondent No.2 had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and respondent No.2 was allowed interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month. The said order as upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge was challenged by the petitioner by way of Crl. Misc. No. 37644-M of 2007 and in the said case following order was passed by this Court:- “Respondent no.2 aggrieved wife has been award Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance under Section Crl. Misc. No. M-23934 of 2010 (O&M) 2 125 Cr.P.C. Challenge is to the order dated 21.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Sub Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, who as interim measure, determined the maintenance of aggrieved wife to be Rs.2,000/- per month. Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 22.11.2006 (Annexure P-2). The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha to finally conclude the proceedings pending under Section 125 Cr.P.C. within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Interim maintenance awarded shall also be subject to the final conclusion arrived at by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha.” Thus, the petitioner is liable to pay the amount of interim maintenance and in this situation it would not be in the interest of justice to interfere with the execution proceedings. Dismissed. (SABINA) August 18, 2010 JUDGE Anand