AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.P. Sandesh, J
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.No.163/2023, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.53/2021 and restored the petition. The learned Magistrate was also directed to fix the quantum of interim-maintenance within 15 days from the date of first appearance of the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in restoring the petition and directing the learned Magistrate to fix the quantum of interim maintenance, since already there was an observation in the earlier order in the compromise itself to make an application in the very same petition. The said submission cannot be accepted and though matter was settled in the earlier proceedings agreeing to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month and liberty is given to file an application for enhancement. When such being the case, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in restoring the petition as well as directing the learned Magistrate to fix the quantum of maintenance and that too, a time bound direction was given. Learned counsel submits that in accordance with the direction, the Trial Court proceeded to pass an order directing to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/-per month. When already such order has been passed, this petition renders itself infructuous.
Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge the interim maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate, if he chooses.