1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CRIMINAL  APPEAL No. 879  OF  2009

                 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7503  of 2008]

BHUSHAN KUMAR MEEN                                       

...   Appellant(s)

                     Versus   MANSI MEEN @ HARPREET KAUR ...  Respondent(s)

WITH  

SLP(Crl.)No.7924 of 2008

O R D E R  

Leave is granted in SLP(C) No.7503 of 2008.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1st July,  

2008, passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Crl.Misc.No.14793-M of 2008,  

whereby  the  appellant's  application  under  Section  482  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure  for  quashing the  orders  dated  25th July,  2007 and 6th November,  2007  

passed by the courts below granting Rs.10,000/- per month, as interim maintenance to  

the respondent-wife, was dismissed.

Taking into consideration the evidence   adduced, the learned Additional Chief  

Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, before whom the proceedings under Section 125 of the  

Criminal  Procedure  Code,  filed  by  the  respondent-wife  is  pending,  directed  the  

appellant-husband to pay the said sum of Rs.10,000/-  by way of interim maintenance  

to the respondent-wife during the pendency of the proceeding.  The said order was

2

affirmed both by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court.

Before us, the appellant-husband, who is appearing in person, has shown that  

his salary certificate had been produced before the Magistrate, from which it appears  

that he was drawing approximately Rs.34,900/- per month towards his salary, out of  

which  various  deductions  were  being  made,  including  a  deduction  of  Rs.21,329/-  

towards the home loan which he had obtained, leaving in his hand as takeaway salary  

a sum of about Rs.9000/-.

The appellant  has submitted that in that view of the matter,  the amount as  

awarded by the Magistrate to the respondent-wife was not justifiable.

The  appellant-husband  has  also  taken  another  point  regarding  the  

maintainability of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on account of the ability  

of the respondent-wife to maintain herself.

On behalf of the respondent-wife, it has been urged that having regard to the  

net salary, which the appellant is entitled to take home, the amount as assessed by way  

of interim maintenance by the Magistrate and as upheld by the Sessions Judge as well  

as the High Court, could not be said to be excessive and that the fact that the appellant  

had  taken  the  home  loan  which  has  been  adjusted  against  the  salary,  is  no  

consideration  for  altering  the  said  amount,  as  had  been  granted  by  the  learned  

Sessions Judge.

As far as the second point taken by the appellant is concerned, it was submitted  

that the same  required evidence and had to be to ultimately decided by the Magistrate  

while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C..

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, and considering the  

reality  of  the situation to the effect  that  the appellant  is  receiving a sum of  about  

Rs.9000/-  in  hand  after  deduction  of  various  amounts,  including  the  instalments

3

towards repayment of the home loan, we are of the view that the amount as awarded  

by way of interim maintenance is on the high side.  At the same time, we cannot also  

shut our eyes to the fact that at present the respondent-wife is not employed or at least  

there is nothing on record to indicate she is employed in any gainful work.  However,  

having regard to the qualifications that she possesses, there is no reason why she ought  

not to be in a position to also maintain herself in the future.  

Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the learned Magistrate, granting  

Rs.10,000/-  per  month to  the  respondent-wife  by  way of  interim maintenance  and  

direct that the appellant-husband shall pay to the respondent-wife a sum of Rs.5000/-  

per month, instead of Rs.10,000/-, and all other terms and conditions, as indicated by  

the learned Magistrate, will continue to operate.

We are informed that there are huge arrears, which are yet to be paid by the  

appellant-husband to the respondent-wife.  The learned Magistrate shall recalculate  

the  amount  of  arrears  on  the  basis  of  the  order  passed  today  and  the  appellant-

husband shall within three months of the re-assessment of the amount, pay the sum to  

the respondent-wife, if necessary, in three installments, to be decided by the learned  

Magistrate.

We make it clear that we have not gone into the question as to what would be  

the amount payable by way of maintenance per month to the respondent-wife and this  

is only an interim arrangement till  the matter is finally disposed of by the learned  

Magistrate.   We  also  keep  open  the  second  question  raised  by  the  husband-wife  

regarding the applicability  of  Section 125 Cr.P.C.  as  far  as  the  respondent-wife is  

concerned.

Since  the matter has been pending for a long time and  evidence has been  

recorded to some extent, we direct the learned Magistrate to dispose of the pending

4

proceedings within six months from the date of communication of this order.

The other Special Leave Petition, being No.7924 of 2008, be delinked from the  

appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.7503 of 2008, being disposed of by this order, and be  

listed separately for final disposal after the summer vacation.

The order of attachment of the salary of the appellant, which had been stayed  

in these proceedings, shall continue till the final disposal of the matter by the learned  

Magistrate.  In the event, the appellant defaults in making the payment in terms of this  

order, the Magistrate will be at liberty to re-impose the order of attachment.  

             ...................J.                                (ALTAMAS KABIR)   

               ...................J.                            (CYRIAC JOSEPH)           

New Delhi,      April 28, 2009.