Judgment : None appears on behalf of the opposite party despite receiving notice sent through registered post with A/D. This matter is pertaining to a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the petitioner’s prayer for interim maintenance was rejected by the learned Trial Court mainly on the ground that when she could maintain herself for last 6 years, no order for interim maintenance is required to be passed and the allegations and counter allegations are required to be established by way of recording evidence. Considering the urgency in the matter and keeping in view the purpose and object of the enactment, this Court proposes to dispose of the application without further delay. The petitioner herein being the wife of the opposite party Susanta Mondal had taken out an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for maintenance for herself from the opposite party Susanta Mondal, the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner made allegations, inter alia, that she was subjected to torture physically and mentally in the matrimonial house and was driven out by her husband and inmates in the year 2004 together with the minor daughter. The opposite party lives in Bangalore, his working place and earns considerable amount of money. He failed and neglected to maintain her. The husband/opposite party Susanta Mondal entered appearance in the proceeding and filed written objection. He made some counter allegations questioning the character of his wife. He made out a specific case that the petitioner is residing in the house owned by him. The learned Trial Court upon consideration of the case of both the parties, petition and written objection filed by them on affidavit, was pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioner on the grounds already mentioned. The fact that the petitioner is married wife of the opposite party is not denied. The fact that the minor daughter is none but the daughter of the opposite party has not been denied also. It might be that the petitioner is living in the house owned by the opposite party but that does not unnecessarily imply that she is able to maintain herself adequately and that she does not need any care from the side of the opposite party. It might be that the petitioner is living in the house owned by the opposite party but that does not unnecessarily imply that she is able to maintain herself adequately and that she does not need any care from the side of the opposite party. The parties herein made aspersion and allegations against each other which, obviously, are subject to strict proof and that evidence is to be recorded by the learned Trial Court. On that count, the learned Trial Court is correct and at the same time, the learned Trial Court was oblivious of the fact that the petitioner needs adequate maintenance for the purpose of survival. It might be that the step taken by her at a belated stage but that cannot take away her right to maintenance which is legal and statutory right. I think that the learned Court ought to have considered that the petitioner has no means to maintain herself while the opposite party is in position to provide her adequate maintenance and that stage of interim maintenance, learned Court ought to have considered that she was supposed to continue the proceeding also and for that purpose she needs some money. Accordingly, I set aside the order and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,500/-towards interim maintenance for the petitioner till the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is disposed of finally by the learned Magistrate. The interim maintenance is to be paid in every month from September, 2011. Each instalment is to be paid by 15th of each month and in case of failure, the learned Trial Court will take necessary legal action for the purpose of realization of the same. The revisional application is, thus, disposed of. Let a plain copy of this order countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner so that it can be placed before the learned Trial Court in order to avoid further delay. The learned Trial Court is directed to act on the plain copy.