Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent no.1, having abetted commission of suicide by her husband, is not entitled to interim maintenance from the petitioner in view of Section 25 of the Act. The contention is completely misplaced, frivolous and meritless. Section 25 of the Act disinherits the murderer from inheriting the property of the person murdered or any other property in furtherance of succession. In the instant case, however, it is not even the case of the petitioner that respondent no.1 had murdered her husband. On the contrary, the allegation against respondent no.1 was that she abetted commission of suicide by her husband. Consequently, Section 25 of the Act is, by no stretch, applicable to disinherit respondent no.1. Secondly, question of inheritance is not an issue in this revision petition. On the contrary, the question of interim maintenance is being adjudicated upon. Section 25 of the Act has no applicability to this issue. Thirdly, counsel for the petitioner conceded that respondent no.1 has since been acquitted by the trial court in the aforesaid case under Section 306 IPC, although appeal filed by the petitioner against said acquittal is pending consideration in this Court. In view of acquittal of respondent no.1 in the aforesaid case also, the aforesaid contention has to be rejected.
