The principle of merger of interim order into final order does not nullify the interim relief granted to the respondents.

M.M.S. Bedi, J.

Petitioner who is husband has sought the quashing of order dated 07.03.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana whereby his objections have been dismissed. Respondents, wife and daughter of the petitioner were granted maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- w.e.f. the date of the order. Challenge to the impugned order dated 27.03.2015 is on the ground that the final order shall have the effect of nullifying the interim order dated 12.06.2012 passed in favour of respondents granting interim maintenance w.e.f. 05.01.2012 @ Rs. 15,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly challenged the execution and recovery of amount of arrears of interim maintenance for the period prior to 22.07.2014 which has neither been paid by the petitioner in total nor could be executed till date.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that whatever interim maintenance has been paid by the petitioner during period from June, 2012 to July, 2014 may be retained by the respondent-wife but no additional amount can be imposed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised arguments on the basis of the observations made in the judgment of Apex Court in Prem Chandra Aggarwal and another v. U.P. Financial Corporation and others 2009(6) S.C.R. 931 (Civil Appeal No.2769 of 2009 decided on 23.04.2009) wherein it has been observed that when final order has been passed by the High Court obviously all interim orders passed by the High Court in the same writ petition cease to exist automatically.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, it appears that grievance of the petitioner is not against the order dated 22.07.2014 but the grievance is against the right of the respondent-wife to recover any amount ordered as interim maintenance w.e.f. 05.01.2012 @ 15,000/- per month from the date of application.

5. As the facts are not disputed, the only controversy which is to be settled in the case is whether the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount of interim maintenance from 05.01.2012 till 22.07.2014 when final order was passed granting Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of order. Learned counsel for the petitioner besides relying upon the judgment in Prem Chandra Agarwal's case (supra), seeks to derive benefit of the language of Section 125 (2) Cr.P.C. wherein a discretion has been given to the Magistrate to the effect that the Magistrate can allow the maintenance w.e.f. the date of the order or from the date of application.

6. Learned counsel submits that as the Magistrate has not mentioned in the final order that the wife would be entitled to any maintenance prior to the date of final order, the recovery of any amount of interim maintenance prior to the date of order i.e. 22.07.2014 would be improbable.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents and carefully gone through the record.

8. There is no dispute regarding legal proposition that Magistrate exercising powers under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. is entitled to specify the date from which the applicant would be entitled for maintenance. It is not in controversy that Magistrate has got a power to grant interim maintenance w.e.f. any date during pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. There is also no dispute regarding legal position that the interim order merges into final order and the interim orders cease to exist when final order is passed but the said principle of law cannot be applied in the present case to nullify the relief which has been granted to the wife as interim maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- per month from 05.01.2012 i.e. the date of application. The principle of merger of interim order into final order would mean that interim relief granted to a party will cease to exist on the day when the final order is passed and that from the date final order is passed, the rights conferred upon a party would be enforceable as per the final order. It does not mean that the interim order