JUDGMENT
R.L. Gupta, J.
(1) During the pendency of Crl.M.(M) 650/88 under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’) for quashing of the ex-parte order dated 25-1-J985 passed by Ms. Deepa Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi under Section 125 of the Code in favor of the respondent, the petitioner has tiled this application for stay of the operation of the impugned order. At the time of the admission of the main petition on June 3, 1988, Santosh Duggal, J. stayed the execution proceedings till the next date. On July 12, 1988, my learned brother H. C. Goel J. stayed the operation of the impugned order till further orders. Thereafter, it appears that the Criminal Miscellaneous main as well as this criminal Miscellaneous went on lingering. There were many adjournments for on reason or the other. Ultimately, on April 27, 1989 finding that the disposal of the main petition under Section 482 of the Code may take sometime, I considered it desirable to decide the stay application.
(2) There was an ex parte order of maintenance against the petitioner husband passed by Ms. Deepa Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate on 25-1-1985. The record of the file shows that various processes were issued against the petitioner-husband. He was reported to be avoiding service. Ultimately, the petitioner was also served by publication in the Punjab Kesri dated 7-9-1984 published from Jalandhar City because the petitioner husband happens to be a resident of Ludhiana. In spite of that the petitioner remained absent and, therefore, was proceeded ex parte.
(3) After recording ex parte evidence, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner husband was guilty of refusal and neglect in maintain his wife and child i.e. the respondents before this Court. She also came to the conclusion that the income of the petitioner was between Rs. 2,000.00 to Rs 3,000.00 per month. Therefore, keeping in view all the circumstances, she awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month to the wife and Rs. 300.00 per month (sic) to the child, respondent No. 2 from the date of the filing of the petition.
(4) The criminal miscellaneous for grant of stay has been contested on behalf of the respondent wife. It is alleged that the petitioner has no case whatsoever, much less to seek stay of the operation of the order granting maintenance to the wife and the minor child. It is operating in a very harsh manner upon them and driving them to starvation. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length on this matter. So far as the relationship between the parties is concerned, there is no denial about the same by the petitioner-husband. He has made no allegations in the main petition under Section 482 of the Code that there was no marriage between the parties or that the child is not born from his loins However, it has challenged on the ground that the wife never applied for grunt of any interim maintenance before the trial Magistrate and as such she was not entitled to that relief in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cod”. The second argument advanced is that the affidavit along with the reply to be Criminal Miscellaneous is not accordance with law and, therefore, for that reason also she was not entitled to the grant of any interim maintenance. It has also been argued that interim maintenance could not be granted unless the ex-parte order was set aside and the proceedings were remanded back before the learned trial Magistrate.
(5) I have given my most careful consideration to ail the arguments. It may be noted that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code were commenced in the present case by the respondent wife on 26-3-1983. A number of attempts were made to serve the petitioner husband through registered covers without any success. Ultimately he had to be served by publication. It was only on 16-10-1984 that on the basis of the publication, ex parte proceedings were ordered against the husband petitioner. The husband has given his address as resident of New Model Colony, House No. 347/90, Saleem Tapri, P.O. Netaji Nagar, Ludhiana. In the petition under Section 125 of the Code except the house number the same address was mentioned. There is a report dated 24-8-1984 of the Post Man on the registered cover that addressee refused to accept service. Then also there is another report dated 1-2-1984 on the registered envelop by the Post Man that in spite of numerous visits at the house, the petitioner husband is not available. Similarly there are various reports between 25-2-1983 and 4-5-1983 on another registered envelop that in spite of number of visits she petitioner is not found at his house. I have referred to these reports to show that by the non-mention of house number in the main petition, the petitioner did not suffer any prejudice because the Post Man was visiting his house time and again in order to deliver to him the summons of the court. In these circumstances prima faice there seemed to be no alternative left to the learned Magistrate except to get him served finally by in a newspaper.
(6) I am, therefore, of the view that in the context of all the circumstances referred above when there is neither denial of relationship, nor there is prima facie absence of proof of service, there seems to be no reason by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The argument that the affidavit of the wife is not strictly in accordance with law does not impress me for the simple reason that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code are of a summary nature and have been framed by the Legislature in order to prevent vagrancy and starvation of a deserted or a neglected wife.
(7) Another argument that was advanced was that the Wife was very well being looked after by her father and, therefore, it could not be said that she was on the verge of starvation or vagrancy and on this account also she did not deserve to be allowed any maintenance I am afraid that this argument does not impress me. It is not the intention of the legislature that the maintenance should be granted only if the wife is driven to vagrancy or starvation. In fact the idea is to prevent the circumstances so that a needy wife can approach a court of competent jurisdiction and claim maintenance. It is a matter of common knowledge that alter the marriage of daughter, parents in India generally do not like to maintain the daughter and in a way she is considered a burden. In this background a wife deserted by her husband while going to the house of her parents has to suffer many psychological set backs in life and it is actually the compulsion of the circumstances which beckon her to tolerate her life in her parents house. In any case it cannot be interpreted to mean that the responsibility of a husband ends because the wife has been given shelter by her parents. Previously interim maintenance was not granted to a wife and it was only in Savitri W/o Govind Singh Rawat v. Govind Singh Rawat that the principle of grant of interim maintenance was recognised for the first time by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(8) THEREFORE. I am of the opinion that during the pendency of the petition under Section 482 of the Code by the husband, there is no bar in. either allowing interim maintenance to the wife or reason to stay the operation of the ex-parte order passed in favor of the wife. I, therefore, vacate the stay of the ex parte order passed in favor of the husband and direct that the petitioner husband shall pay maintenance to both the respondents at the rate awarded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate with effect from June 3, 1988 i.e. the date on which the operation of the impugned order was. stayed.
(9) All the above arrears shall be paid by the husband in the open court to the wife on the next date of hearing, on the main petition. This application stands disposed off.
(10) CRI. Misc. (M) be listed on 21st July, 1989.