1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Smt. Lalita & Ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar Mukhija (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1097/2009) S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Date of Judgment: November 11, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Biri Singh Sinsinwar, for the petitioners. Mr.Mohit Gupta, for the respondent. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2009, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Alwar, whereby the learned Magistrate has granted an interim maintenance of merely Rs.200/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.150/- each to the petitioner Nos.2 & 3, the petitioners have approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 filed an application for maintenance against the respondent before the learned Magistrate. In the application, she has stated that on 17.02.2002 she married the respondent. From the marriage, two children were born. After her marriage, the respondent started to physically and mentally torture her and to 2 demand dowry. In 2006, the respondent threw her out of the house. Thus, she prayed for maintenance. The respondent submitted his reply and denied the allegations made in the application for maintenance. After hearing both the parties, Vide order dated 20.01.2009, the learned Magistrate awarded an interim maintenance of Rs.200/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.150/- each to the respondent Nos.2 & 3. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that considering the fact that allegedly the respondent lives in a joint family who owns a number of shops, the learned Magistrate should have granted a more liberal interim maintenance. On the other hand, Mr. Mohit Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the case is listed for final arguments on 26th November, 2010 where the regular maintenance that needs to be paid by the respondent to the petitioners would be decided. Moreover, the petitioner No.1 is already receiving a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, she is not justified in claiming that amount of Rs.200/- is a meager amount. 3 In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that although the case may be listed for final disposal on 26th November, 2010, there is no guarantee that it would be decided on the said date. Meanwhile the petitioner No.1 continues to suffer as she has two children. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The learned Magistrate has merely granted an interim maintenance and not a final one. The learned Magistrate is certainly justified in concluding that the petitioners' maintenance will be decided only after the evidence has been submitted before the Court. Since there were allegations and counter allegations, he was justified in not giving a final amount. Moreover, once the final maintenance is decided, the learned Magistrate is equally free to direct that the arrears of the maintenance shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioners. Considering the fact that the petitioner No.1 is being paid Rs.1,000/- under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, considering the fact that the case is listed for final hearing and judgment, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the order dated 20.01.2009. 4 Therefore, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. However, this Court directs the learned Magistrate to decide the case, preferably on 26th November, 2010 and to pass the necessary order in accordance with law. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki