N.B. Asthana, J. - (1.) I have perused the record and considered the argument advanced, on behalf of the revisionist. This revision has been directed against the order dated 27.10.94 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Meerut in criminal case No. 1212 of 1991 under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code by which the revisionist has been directed,to pay interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month from 19.9.91 i.e. date of application. This order was passed on 27.10.94: From the order passed it would appear that the case could not he decided as the present revisionist used to move one application after another in order to delay the disposal, of the case. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the court below committed any illegality or impropriety in, granting interim maintenance allowance, from the date of application, In Smt, Savutt v. Govind Singh. Rawat 1985 (22) ACC 447 (SC) the Supreme Court held, that having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a Magistrate under Section, 125 Criminal Procedure Code, the said provision should be interpreted as confirming power by necessary implication on the Magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom an application is made under it to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance subject to the other conditions referred to pending final disposal of the application. in view of this Ruling the maintenance allowance can be granted from the date of application itself.
(2.) It was urged that the maintenance allowance granted at the rate of Rs.400/- per month is excessive and that the applicant is a barber by profession and is able to Rs. 10/- or Rs. 15/- per day. The contention of the other party was that the revisionist is running a barber shop at Meerut and is able to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. Taking the contentions of both the parties into considerations the hair-cutting charges which the barbers are getting and the place where the barber shop is situate and the high cost of living it cannot be said that the trial court was unjustified in fixing maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. It was then argued that a large amount of arrears have accumulated and in case the revisionist is made to pay the entire amount all atonce he will be ruined.
(3.) The revision, on merits has no force. In case the revisionist deposits maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month from the date of order i.e. 27.10.94 upto date within three weeks of the date of order, the trial court would give the facility of payment of previous,arrears in reasonable quarterly instalments. The revisionist would continue to pay subsequent maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month by 7th of the month in which it becomes due. In case of default the entire arrears due would become payable forthwith and the facility of payment of arrears of maintenance allowance in easy quarterly instalments would he forfeited.;