JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Rs. 8,000/- (eight thousand) granted as interim maintenance in favour of Respondent No. 2 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City Judge) Jammu vide order dated 17.05.2014, has been on application of the petitioner, deferred by the same Court vide its order dated 09.12.2014, till evidence of summary nature is lead by both the parties. Aggrieved thereof, the Respondent No. 2 filed the revision petition which has been disposed of by learned 1st Additional Sessions Court, Jammu vide judgment dated 30.03.2016, restoring order of interim maintenance with the modification, i.e. instead of Rs. 8,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- were directed to be paid per month till disposal of the main petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 30.03.2016, the petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of the State of J. & K. 2. From the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Respondent No. 2 and from the perusal of the records, what surfaces is that petitioner was earlier married to one lady which marriage ended into divorce whereas Respondent No. 2 was also married to some other person, that marriage also terminated with divorce. So both the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 being divorcee have contracted the marriage but due to alleged acrimonious conduct, they had strained relationship which according to the petitioner ended into divorce as according to him, he has divorced Respondent No. 2 vide divorce deed styled as Deed of Talaq on 10.11.2013. As alleged the said act of the petitioner infuriated Respondent No. 2 who has filed number of cases including the suit for declaring the said Talaq Nama as invalid. 3. Respondent No. 2 also filed the petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City Judge), Jammu vide detailed order dated 17.05.2014 in ex parte subject to objections granted interim maintenance amounting to Rs. 8,000/- per month from the date of order. The petitioner (respondent therein) had filed the application pleading therein that the petitioner is not liable to pay any maintenance in favour of a divorcee (Respondent No. 2). 4. Learned Magistrate after referring to the judgment of this court rendered in the case of 2014 (3) JKJ 1 [HC] Masrat Begum v. Abdul Rashid Khan & Anr. The petitioner (respondent therein) had filed the application pleading therein that the petitioner is not liable to pay any maintenance in favour of a divorcee (Respondent No. 2). 4. Learned Magistrate after referring to the judgment of this court rendered in the case of 2014 (3) JKJ 1 [HC] Masrat Begum v. Abdul Rashid Khan & Anr. has deferred the order in the interim application till the evidence of summary nature is lead by both the parties. 5. Learned Revisional court in the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly exercised the revisional jurisdiction while ordering maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/-. 6. On the plea of divorce, which is subject to proof, interim maintenance cannot be denied. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the various judgments but judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Manzoor Ahmad Dar v. Tasleema Akhtar (Mst) & Anr. reported in 2014 (4) JKJ 3 [HC] squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the reported judgment, similar stand was taken that the respondent therein was divorced vide written divorce deed dated 03.07.2012, as a result whereof, marriage did not subsist on the date petition for grant of maintenance was filed. Paras 5 and 6 of the said judgment are relevant to be quoted: "5. At this stage, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The judgment, as relied upon by the learned counsel, has different peculiar facts, so with respects is not applicable to the present case, that too in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 3551 ). The revisional Court while granting maintenance to Respondent No. 1 has followed the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shamim Ara's case (supra). The factum of divorce in a recognized mode so as to disentitle Respondent No. 1 from claiming maintenance has to be proved by the petitioner before the trial Court. 6. The position of the divorce, as pleaded, has been taken note of by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge while relying on the judgments reported in 2005 (I) SLJ J. & K. 341 Amina Banoo v. Ab. Majid Ganai: 2010 (4) JKJ 398 [HC], 2003 (II) SLJ J. & K. 619 Manzoor Ahmad Khan v. Saja & Ors. 6. The position of the divorce, as pleaded, has been taken note of by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge while relying on the judgments reported in 2005 (I) SLJ J. & K. 341 Amina Banoo v. Ab. Majid Ganai: 2010 (4) JKJ 398 [HC], 2003 (II) SLJ J. & K. 619 Manzoor Ahmad Khan v. Saja & Ors. 2010 (4) JKJ 380 [HC] and other judgments, wherein it has been settled that the plea of the applicant to have divorced his wife cannot be accepted unless pronouncement and communication of divorce is proved to have been done in accordance with provisions of law and Quranic injunctions." 7. The power exercisable under Section 104 of the J&K Constitution has to be only in cases where it would be noticed that the revisional Court has travelled beyond its limits. 8. Grant of interim maintenance is allowable till plea of divorce is proved. Otherwise, non grant thereof shall have disastrous consequences. On the one hand, sociological object of Section 488 Cr.P.C. will be defeated because there will be every apprehension and chance for the seeker of interim maintenance to be subjected to destitution and vagrancy. The grant of interim maintenance, except in exceptional cases, has to be granted. The present case does not fall within such exceptional cases, so as to deny the grant of interim maintenance. 9. Suffice it to say that the learned Magistrate shall conclude the proceedings under Section 488 Cr.P.C. with promptitude preferably within six months time by scheduling the proceedings preferably on weekly basis. For the stated reasons, this petition being devoid of merit, shall stand disposed of accordingly, along with connected MP. Copy of the order be sent to Revisional Court (1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu) and also to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City Judge), Jammu for information and compliance.