Balram Argidda vs A. Chandramma and Another

This revision is filed under Ss. 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the orders dt. 3-1-1994 In Cri. M.P. No. 1516 of 1993 in M.C. No. 6 of 1993 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet.

The facts in giving rise to the filing of this revision are, briefly, as follows :-

The respondent herein Smt. A. Chandramma, filed a maintenance case against her husband, the petitioner herein claiming maintenance before the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet. The petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 1516 of 1993 requesting to grant interim maintenance pending disposal of the main M.C. 6 of 1993 at the rate of Rs. 250/-. It is mentioned in the petition that the averments of the main petition may be considered in this petition also, and the said petition was filed by the counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner herein filed a counter stating that the petitioner did not even file any affidavit in support of her petition and also did not sign the petition and requested to dismiss the petition.

The learned Magistrate overruled the objection of the respondent and granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this revision.

On the grounds urged before me, the point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is unsustainable in law?

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner ought to have filed an affidavit stating as to the circumstances in which she is seeking interim maintenance or at least should have filed a petition and the counsel cannot himself sign and file a petition seeking interim maintenance on behalf of the petitioner and the lower court erroneously granted interim maintenance and he relied on a decision Savitri Rawat Vs. Govind Singh Rawat, wherein the Supreme Court held as under (at p.

"..... The Magistrate may, however, insist upon an affidavit being filed by or on behalf of the applicant concerned stating the grounds in support of the claim for interim maintenance to satisfy himself that there is a prima facie case for making such an order. Such an order may also be made in an appropriate case ex parte pending service of notice of the application subject to any modification or even an order of cancellation that may be passed after the respondent is heard. If the allegations in the application or the affidavit are not true, it is always open to the person against whom such an order is made to show that the order is unsustainable ...."

But the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is mentioned in the petition that the contents of the main petition may be read in this petition also and the said petition was signed by the petitioner and therefore, there is no flaw in filing the petition by the counsel and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held even on application filed by the petitioner, interim maintenance can be granted without adducing any evidence and, the application means cral or written. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate and he relied on a decision V. Venkateshwara Rao v. V. Padmavathi (1993) 1 (AP) 364, wherein this Court held as under :-

"..... The proceedings under S. 125, Cr.P.C. even for main cases of maintenance are summary in nature. If that be so, to say that a regular enquiry is necessary to grant even for interim maintenance is only to make such a relief refunded. But the very nature of the relief being interim, pending the summary proceedings for final maintenance which are susceptible for variance by a civil court decree, no regular enquiry is warranted for payment of interim maintenance. It is sufficient, if the matter is placed before the Court below by even an affidavit or an application and on perusing the counter, if any, filed the Court below can pass the orders of interim maintenance on being satisfied about the urgency in that regard by fixing a reasonable quantum pending adjudication of the main maintenance case ...."

He further relied on a decision, Chitti Prasada Rao v. Chitti Asiripolamma (1993) 1 (AP) 212, wherein this Court held as under :-

"... In the instance case, even thought there is no application for interim maintenance or an affidavit thereof, the statement made by the 1st respondent as PW-1 can be treated as an application without standing for any technicalities as to the form. Treating the same as an application or affidavit, as the case may be, as the said deposition was made on oath before the court and in person carrying more credence than the prepared affidavit signed by the party, I feel that it is an appropriate case where three sons who are economically well placed can be directed to pay interim maintenance to their mother who is in distress according to ber statement and which has been prima facie found to be true by the Court of Magistrate below ..."

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place in the year 1961 and a daughter was born to them and she was married. The revision petitioner herein is working as a teacher at Govt. Primary School, Kajipur of Mehboobnagar District. Subsequently, differences arose in between them and ultimately lead to the situation of residing separately and thus the petitioner filed M.C. No. 6 of 1993 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. The counsel filed a petition seeking interim maintenance and it is mentioned that the averments of the main petition may be read in this petition also. It is further mentioned in the main petition that the petitioner is residing with her brother and he is a very poor person and the petitioner is unable to maintain herself, and is begging before labourers to safeguard her skin by taking clothes from others, etc. The learned Magistrate on considering the financial position of both parties, granted interim maintenance at Rs. 200/- per month.

The only contention raised by the counsel for the revision petitioner is that the counsel is not competent to sign and file the petition on behalf of the claimant. The Supreme Court observed that even interim maintenance can be granted ex parte taking into consideration the averments of the petition or affidavit filed in support of the petition claiming maintenance, and after appearance of the parties, if the contents are not true, orders can be modified or set aside. This Court in Chitti Prasada Rao''s case (1993 (1) (AP) 212), referred to above, held that even if there is no application for seeking interim maintenance, the statement made by the petitioner as PW-1, can be treated as an application without standing any technicalities and upheld the granting of maintenance by the Magistrate. Thus it is clear where the petitioner is in distress and unable to maintain herself and if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there is immediate need to grant interim maintenance, the court can grant interim maintenance even without application. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is one of more technical in nature. The averments of the main petition in M.C. 6 of 1993 clearly show that she is unable to maintain herself and she is begging others and taking into consideration the above circumstances of the case, though the application was not signed by the petitioner and signed by the counsel, the learned Magistrate granted interim maintenance at Rs. 200/- per month pending disposal of the main M.C. Therefore, it is not desirable to dismiss the application on technical grounds, particularly in a case of this nature. Therefore, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and submission of both counsel and in view of the decision referred to supra, I do not think that the Magistrate has committed any error or illegality in passing orders granting interim maintenance on application filed by the counsel, taking into consideration the averments of the main petition. The point is decided accordingly.

In the result, the revision fails and it is dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to dispose of the main M.C. as expeditiously as possible not later than three months.

Revision dismissed.