Mohit Sharma Vs Indu Sharma

Counsel for the petitioner claims that the amount of Rs.5000/per month as interim maintenance is on higher side. The Courts below has not taken the earning capacity and present status of the petitioner.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that this petition against the interim order determining the interim maintenance is not maintainable as the disputed question of determination

¶20

CRM M- 17355 of 2013

¶21

[2]

¶22

of salary of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶23

A perusal of the file indicates that the matter regarding interim maintenance is pending w.e.f. August 2011. The agony of the petitioner on account of the interim maintenance can be shortened by requiring the trial Court to complete the proceedings within a period of six months after the next date of hearing.

¶24

Dismissed. However, it is ordered that in case the petitioner moves an application for expeditious disposal of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the proceedings within a period of six months after the application is filed.

¶25

May 27, 2013 sanjay

¶26

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

Mohit Sharma v. Indu Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Sharma v. Indu Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naunihal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ramandeep Kaur Vs State of Haryana

Jagdeep Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Manoj Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Navjot Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Angrej Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.