Madhya Pradesh High CourtSushma Bai vs Dalu Singh on 30 November, 2011Criminal Revision No.959/2002130.11.2011
               I have heard learned counsel for the applicant.
               The applicant moved an application undersection 125of the Code
        of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for shortCr.P.C.) which was allowed by the
        Magistrate by order dated 22.3.2001 directing the interim maintenance to be
        paid to the applicant at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month.While awarding the maintenance the Magistrate has not at all
        adverted to the income of the husband, and as to whether the wife is living
        apart because of his sufficient cost or not.The revisional court set aside the order, saying amongst other things
        that because the wife has filed the application undersection 125Cr.P.C.
        belatedly after three years without explaining any reason for such delay and
        further because the wife has not instituted any civil proceeding for
        restitution of conjugal rights, therefor it would be presumed that she was
        living apart from the husband without sufficient cause. In my opinion, both
        the orders are not correct. Therefore, while the matter will be re-examined
        by the Magistrate expeditiously, after giving opportunity of hearing and, if
        necessary, of leading evidence to both the parties but the observations of the
        lower revisional Court will not be taken into consideration by the learned
        Magistrate.With the aforesaid directions, the criminal revision is disposed of.(Sushil Harkauli)
                                               Acting Chief Justice
HS/AK