Criminal Revision No.171 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Revision No.171 of 2008 Date of Decision:03.11.2009 Bani @ Kumar Gautam .....Petitioner Vs. Ladi @ Seema @ Shivani .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. A.K. Singh Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 16.12.2006 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar whereby he allowed the application of Ladi alias Seema awarding her interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent is destitute having no source of her income nor she own or possess any moveable or immovable property. Her husband has wilfully and deliberately refused to maintain her although he is an able bodied person and is earning Rs.12,000/- per month from the tuition work etc. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, besides Criminal Revision No.171 of 2008 -2- perusing the record with due care and circumspection. This case was adjourned from time to time for arguments, but none had been putting in appearance on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that this matter for hearing was also displayed on the net. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner had taken a categoric stand that the marriage was solemnised on 21.2.2002 according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies, but they lived together only for a fortnight as he came to know that his wife was suffering from acute asthama and they are putting up separately since 8.3.2002. He has completed his graduation only in 2003 and he is still unemployed. The learned Court below without appreciating material brought on the record, passed the impugned order awarding interim maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent. The same is liable to be set aside. He further puts that the learned Court below though noticed in the impugned order that divorce petition filed by the petitioner has been decided vide judgment dated 9.8.2005, nonetheless, has passed the impugned order. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with these submissions. Section 125(1)(d), second proviso as well as sub-section (4) read as under:- “[Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such Criminal Revision No.171 of 2008 -3- proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct. Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses for proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.] (4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.” The petitioner has earned the ex-parte divorce decree dated 9.8.2005 (Annexure P.1) on the ground that his wife- respondent was asthmatic, which she had concealed before marriage and was unable to have sexual intercourse with him. Firstly, she has been condemned unheard. Secondly, these grounds do not figure in Section 125(4) ibid. As alleged, the petitioner is earning Rs.12,000/- per month, though there is nothing on the record to show that the respondent has wherewithals to make her both ends meet. To crown it all, the amount of interim maintenance allowance fixed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is reasonable on its face. As per the amended law, even after divorce, the wife is entitled to get maintenance allowance from her husband till she remarries. In these premises, it is found Criminal Revision No.171 of 2008 -4- that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. November 03, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No