Granting or non-granting interim maintenance is not punishing any litigant; Kar HC observes Proviso to S. 125 of CrPC provides discretion to court to order interim maintenance during pendency of proceedings

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka High Court: M Nagaprasanna, J., dismissed the petition and refused to grant prayer as the case is at a pre matured stage and is not the right time to post the matter for examination.

The facts of the case are such that the respondent-wife registered a complaint on 7-12-2020 alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 read with 34 of IPC and preferred application seeking maintenance from the hands of the husband invoking Section 125 of the CrPC. The petitioner thus challenged the entertaining of the proceedings in the case registered by the respondent-wife.

Counsel for petitioner Mr Shivanna submitted that wife on her own consent or with the consent of the husband moved out of the matrimonial house and therefore, the husband –petitioner is not liable to pay any maintenance.

Counsel for respondent Mr Umesh BN submitted incidents of unbearable harassment and ill-treatment from both by the husband and mother- in- law has resulted in her going away from the matrimonial house. This can by no stretch mean moving away of the wife by mutual consent for the petitioner to contend that proceedings were not maintainable.

The Court reiterates what the Trial Court observed that the proviso to Section 125 CrPC provides discretion to court to order for interim maintenance during the pendency of proceedings and at this pre matured stage court feels it is not just to post the matter for examination. Further granting or non granting of interim maintenance is not punishing any litigant. Prima-facie at this juncture petition shows that petitioner and respondent are not living together since two year and petitioner is living in her maternal house. Hence, the application filed by the respondent under Sections 125 and 126 of CrPC is concerned it will be considered at the time of hearing on main petition.

Hence, the application filed by the respondent under Sections 125 and 126 of CrPC is kept in abeyance as examination of the parties is not at all necessary for deciding interim application is maintenance.

The Court thus held “no grounds to interfere at this juncture, the petition stands dismissed.” [Sathish v. Ambika, Criminal Petition No. 474 of 2022, decided on 12-04-2022]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.