1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 134 of 2004. Date of Decision: September 10, 2008. ________________________________________________________ Sohan Singh. Petitioner. Versus Jaswinder Kaur and another. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal,Advocate. ________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J (oral). The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only assailed the order of learned Sessions Judge dated 2.11.2004 whereby he affirmed the orders of interim maintenance passed on 21.2.2004 by the learned trial court, in favour of the wife of petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner has sought the customary divorce and the respondent-wife has received the lump-sum amount, which fact is not properly appreciated and dealt with by the courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Respondent No.1 was awarded interim maintenance at the rate of 1,000/- per month from the date of application, which is challenged on the ground of an agreement dated 15.12.2003 whereby both the parties are alleged to have mutually separated and the respondent wife admitted to have received the lump sum amount and had fore-gone the future maintenance. As per the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C, even a divorcee is entitled for the maintenance. The talaqnama/ agreement, which is alleged to have been placed on record by the petitioner before the court below, the genuineness of which is yet to be determined, because it was alleged to have been executed during the pendency of the proceedings and it was placed on record during the arguments while considering the application for interim maintenance as is evident from the order passed by the learned trial court. The learned Sessions Judge has exhaustively dealt with the plea taken. The agreement in question does not specify the amount given by the petitioner to the respondent No.1. In absence thereof the court cannot determine whether the amount so given was sufficient for her maintenance. The said deed is required to be tested in view of Section 4 of the Hindu 3 Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent No.1 has not remarried as per her affidavit filed in the court. Therefore, in view of this, I do not find any substance in the present petition and accordingly it is dismissed. The learned trial court may consider the said talaqnama/ agreement in accordance with law, while deciding the case on merits, however, it shall not get influenced by the observations made either by the court hereinabove or by the learned Sessions Judge in its order dated 2.11.2004, passed in Criminal Revision No.6/2004. The parties are hereby directed to be present before the learned trial court on 16.10.2008. Record be returned forthwith. September 10,2008. (Surinder Singh) ( Pds ) Judge.