- (1.) IN connection with a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the petitioners prayer for interim maintenance being rejected by the learned Court below, the instant criminal revisional application has been moved against the same.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the impugned order as well as the case laws cited by them.
(3.) IT appears the Learned Court below turned down the petitioners prayer for interim maintenance for the reasons the Civil Court before whom a matrimonial suit is pending between the parties has rejected the petitioners application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for alimony pendente lite on the ground she has means to maintain herself and whether same is sufficient or not that is matter of evidence and can only be decided after recording of evidence is over. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently urged the reason assigned by the Learned Magistrate in refusing to grant interim maintenance to the petitioner is wholly erroneous and against the law as laid down by the Honble Apex Court. According to him the Learned magistrate is not bound by any decision of the Civil Court and even if the wife has income it is essential for him to decide whether such income of the wife is sufficient or not to maintain herself according to the status of the family. In this connection the learned advocate of the petitioner relied on a decision of the honble Apex Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai, reported in (2008) 2 scc 316. While the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party vehemently contended that the order impugned does not suffers from any illegality or impropriety. She further submitted that the Learned Magistrate has very rightly rejected the petitioners prayer for interim maintenance on the ground that matrimonial court has rejected her prayer for alimony pendente lite. Next, she produced the certified copy of an order passed in connection with C. O. 3773 of 2008 by this Honble High Court, where this High Court upheld the order passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Sealdah rejecting the petitioners prayer for alimony pendente lite. She further submitted although the wife/petitioner is pressing for interim maintenance but due to dilatory tactics adopted by her till date the main maintenance proceeding instituted in the year 2006 could not have been concluded and there is no progress.;