9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Whether a magistrate can make an interim order directing payment of maintenance pending disposal of an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Summary: The petitioner applied u/s 125 of the Code for maintenance and sought an interim order, which the magistrate refused, citing lack of express provision. The provisions in Chapter IX aim to provide a preventive remedy for quick maintenance payment. The jurisdiction under Chapter IX is not purely criminal; it ensures a quick remedy to prevent starvation. The court must interpret the provisions to uphold the legislation's purpose. In the absence of express prohibition, it's appropriate to imply the magistrate's power to order interim maintenance. This is crucial for applicants awaiting final orders, ensuring they can survive until then. The court should possess necessary powers to make effective orders. The recognition of implied power won't lead to misuse, as safeguards can be implemented. The magistrate may require an affidavit to support the claim for interim maintenance. The provisions should be interpreted to allow magistrates to order interim maintenance, considering the nature of the jurisdiction u/s 125 of the Code. The opinion is based on the true construction of the relevant provisions of the Code. The dispute regarding maintenance is settled between the parties, rendering further orders unnecessary. The petition is disposed of.
|
