Mohit Stanley vs Suneet Bala Simon
2005 Latest Caselaw 792 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

1. The petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge (in short `ASJ') dated 7.10.2004 whereby the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate for payment of interim maintenance to the respondent, Smt.Suneet Bala Simon, @ Rs.800/- per month had been upheld. The ground for challenge of the order of Magistrate before the Additional Sessions Judge was that the petitioner was suffering from certain illnesses and that the respondent had left the matrimonial home without any just cause. The learned ASJ observed that the Metropolitan Magistrate passed the order of maintenance @ Rs.800/- per month on the ground that the petitioner was a man of means and had a sound body and, therefore, could not avoid the responsibility of maintaining his wife. The learned ASJ did not find any infirmity in the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The grounds before this court taken by the petitioner to challenge the impugned order is the same, namely, that the petitioner was suffering from some illness which rendered him incapable of earning any money. Thus the present petition, although titled as one under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is actually a second revision petition and, therefore, not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Another important feature of this petition is that the petition challenges the interim order of maintenance of a paltry sum of Rs.800/- per month. This order of interim maintenance is subject to the outcome of the final adjudication. The respondent is admittedly the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Accordingly, it will be improper to interfere with the impugned order.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajathi v. C.Ganesan reported as 1999 [2] JCC (SC) 339 in which on very similar facts the Supreme Court held that the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. was in fact a second revision and barred by Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. It also observed that the High Court should not have interfered with the order of maintenance of a petty amount of Rs.200/- per month.

4. In my opinion, the facts in the case of Rajathi v. C. Ganesan (Supra) are identical on all fours with the facts in the present petition. Following the decision of the Supreme Court, I am constrained to dismiss the present petition. It is ordered accordingly.