This brief order addresses a petition challenging an interim maintenance order granted by the trial court without an explicit application by the petitioner, dismissing the technical contention and affirming the interim grant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN IHEHI(H( CIRCUIT BE
INKA RGA
L\ I ‘I riP
\f.
I TJ: f p; i t I
flT) YT I) 1ISI’J‘rnT% L\iJ 1t>tfl— I 9flFaI(
\ Li
\I ‘ I : II I I I \ I 1 -
I ml
I)
‘I iR1I A 1 111 I
)
2
ORDER
On 27.02.2012, the trial Court has passed the
Io11ovii ig order:
Petit loner and IZespondei it presei it.
his undertaking he Respondent appeared today to get the shall per month to the petitioner from 0 1 .03.201 2 till the the disposal ol the case. petitioner to his home as he has failed to do ii Respondent pay today so on the last hearing daic. The Respondent is directed to take the petitioner with him fails to Rs. 1500/-
Call on 12.03.2012w.
t lie pet it loner thai t he order is bad iii law without any request grant maintenance, the trial Court li as tran ted maintenance written The contention is technical. for of Interim to the respondent. Even if the order Is set is the contention of ‘l’herefore. 2. It
3
ol’ interim maintenance. which has to be eventually granted. aside. the wife would necessarily make an application In that view the criminal petition Is for grant
dismissed.
JUDGE Sd/
Sri
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court's order granting interim maintenance without a specific written request by the petitioner is bad in law.
Petitioner
Respondent
Sd/
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
