The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Muslim Personal Law in granting maintenance and the principles of reconciliation before divorce, prima facie material for interim maintenance, and the right to produce evidence.

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.

Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 01.05.2017 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri in File No. 63/Revision setting aside order dated 29.03.2016 passed by JMIC Kotranka. Petitioner also seeks quashing of order dated 25.05.2017 passed by JMIC Kotranka dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner for grant of maintenance.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent No. 4, namely, Mohammad Mukhter and their marriage was solemnized almost three and half years ago according to the Muslim Personal Law at Village Swari, Tehsil Kotranka, District Rajouri. That out of their marriage, no issue was born and during the initial days of marriage, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 was cordial, but after the passing of one and half years, suddenly the behaviour of the respondent No. 4 changed towards the petitioner and he started harassing/torturing the petitioner. All these activities in the matrimonial house were done only with the purpose to torture the petitioner and was asked to pay the extra dowry to the tune of Rs. 3.00 lacs, which the petitioner denied on the pretext that her father has already paid the sufficient dowry under their influence in the marriage and he is not further in a position to do so. That the respondent No. 4 is an employee of Indian Army and is getting Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) as his monthly salary and in addition to this, various other allowances are paid to him and is, therefore, a person of means and sources. Since the environment of the matrimonial house was disturbed by the respondent No. 4 by his daily unusual activities and was mentally and physically torturing the petitioner and she was thrown out of the matrimonial house and has become destitute completely dependent on the parents for maintaining her life, during such a time when inflation is touching the sky.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that when the petitioner was thrown out of the matrimonial home, the petitioner filed an application for maintenance before the Court of learned Munsiff JMIC, Kotranka on 31st October, 2015. That after hearing both the parties & keeping in view the earning capacity of the respondent No. 4, the learned Munsiff JMIC, Kotranka by virtue of order dated 29th March, 2016, directed respondent No. 4 to pay the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per month to the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Munsiff JMIC, Kotranka, the respondent No. 4 filed Revision Petition against the aforesaid order dated 29.03.2016 and the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri has vide order dated 1st May, 2017 set aside the order dated 29th March, 2016 with the following observation:-

"In view of the above, the impugned order stands set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with law regarding the claim of interim maintenance after affording an opportunity to the parties to produce the evidence of summary nature for passing the provisional remedy."

5. That in pursuance of the directions passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, the Court of learned Munsiff JMIC, Kotranka vide order dated 25th May, 2017 dismissed the maintenance petition without application of mind. The order dated 1st May, 2017 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri and the order dated 25th May, 2017 passed by the Munsiff JMIC, Kotranka are impugned and challenged inter alia on the following grounds:-

(a) Both the orders dated 1st May, 2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri and 25th May, 2017 passed by the learned Munsiff JMIC, Kotranka are bad in the eye of law and, therefore, cannot sustain the test of law, as such is liable to be set aside.

(b) The careful perusal of the order dated 1st May, 2017 shows that the only ground