- (1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
(2.) IT appears that the applicant filed an application on 13-5-91 against opposite party No. 2 Jagdish Chandra Shukla claim ing maintenance. An exparte order of maintenance was granted on 5-10-91 and the husband, opposite party No. 2 was directed to pay Rs. 150/- per month to the applicant. Thereafter an application for setting aside the ex-parte order was filed by the opposite party No. 2 on 31 -8-92 which was allowed on 2-12- 94. The Court below set aside the ex-pane order and ordered for payment of Rs. 200/ -. IT is not clear from the order whether Rs. 200/- was awarded as costs or they were to be paid as interim maintenance. The application by opposite party No. 2 for refund of the maintenance amount already paid under ex- parte order was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 1-5-98. Opposite party No. 2 filed a revision challenging the order dated 1-5-98 but the same was dismissed on 3-4-1999. I have gone through the order dated 1-5-98 and 3-4-99 and the Court below have given cogent reasons for reject ing the application of opposite party No. 2. After dismissal of his revision on 3-4-99, opposite party No. 2 filed an application on 22-5-99 stating therein that he is ready to marry the applicant. It may be noted here that opposite party No. 2 is contesting the application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. on the ground that the applicant is not his wife. The application dated 22-5-99 of op posite party No. 2 (Annexure-9) asking the Court to pass directions for marriage of the applicant with opposite party No. 2 is meaningless in these proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P. C. because the opposite party No. 2 has denied his marriage with the applicant in clear terms. Even in his application dated 22-5-99 opposite party No. 2 has asserted that the applicant is not married to him. I have no doubt in my mind that the application dated 22-5-99 has been moved for some ulterior purpose and under Section 125, Cr. P. C. the Court can not direct the applicant to marry with op posite party No. 2. The allegations in the application of opposite party No. 2 that he has grown older and his wife has died and he is in dire need of a woman for support ing him and hence the applicant be asked to marry him has been made to humiliate the applicant and appear to be simply mis chievous. The fact remains that the point for determination before the Court is whether the applicant is married wife of opposite party No. 2or not.
(3.) THE case has lingered on for a very long time and more than 9 years have elapsed. In these circumstances, the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. as expeditiously as possible. It is further directed that in case it is not possible to dispose of the application expeditiously, it shall be open to the learned Magistrate to make a clear cut order granting interim maintenance to the applicant as in the instant case very purpose of maintenance proceedings is being frustrated due to delay in disposal. With the above observations and directions this application is disposed of finally. Application disposed of. .;