M.M.PUNCHHI, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which challenge has been made to an interim order of maintenance passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur.
(2.) THE respondent Naraini Devi filed a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for herself and for her minor children claiming maintenance for Tek Chand petitioner and on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat. 1986(1) Current Law Journal 81, 1986(1) Recent Cr. 83, prayed for interim maintenance. The learned Magistrate obtained affidavits of both sides. Without adverting to them properly, he awarded Rs. 100/ - per mensem as interim maintenance to Naraini Devi and Rs. 75/ - per mensem per child.
(3.) THE petitioner has brought one of his sons Manoj Kumar and says that this child has been living with him all along and the award of maintenance qua him to Naraini Devi was without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute this proposition. Awarding maintenance to Naraini Devi for Manoj Kumar minor was thus an abuse of the process of Court. That part of the order being without jurisdiction is quashed. Next remains Rs. 100/ - per mensem granted to Naraini Devi and Rs. 150/ - for the remaining two minor children as maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner is at pains to content that this sum was excessive and the affidavit of the petitioner has not been weighed by the learned Magistrate in the right perspective. On either of the two grounds, I find myself unable to interfere. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hardly the remedy. The petitioner may, if so advised, apply for review. Undoubtedly, the orders of the Magistrate being interim in nature can always be altered by him without treading any provision of law, if cause is shown to him.;