15.7.2026 SL No. 9 Ct No. 42 SB CRR 2709 of 2017 Munia Pandit Vs. Ajit Pandit 1. When the matter is called on for hearing, none appears on behalf of either of the parties. No accommodation is sought. The matter has been languishing on the files of this Court since the year 2017. A persistent reluctance on the part of the petitioner to prosecute this revisional application is manifest from the record. 2. It is a fundamental canon of matrimonial jurisprudence that the remedy of interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a temporary, emergent measure designed to prevent immediate destitution and vagrancy. The promptitude with which a party pursues such a remedy is a crucial index of their actual financial distress. But in the present case, the petitioner/wife has chosen to remain completely unrepresented and has failed to prosecute this application for nearly a decade. Such protracted dormancy and complete lack of interest in seeking higher interim sustenance strongly suggest that the petitioner is not in immediate, dire financial need, nor is she facing a situation of absolute vagrancy that would warrant an extraordinary intervention under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The instant revisional application at the instance of the petitioner/wife is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Re-designated Court, Paschim Medinipur, in Criminal Revision No. 666 of 2016, modifying the ex parte interim maintenance order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur, in M.R. Case No. 296 of 2016. By the impugned order, the learned Revisional Court below scaled down the interim maintenance from a total of ₹7,000/- per month (₹4,000/- for the wife and ₹3,000/- for the child) to a sum of ₹3,000/- per month (₹2,000/- for the wife and ₹1,000/- for the child). 4. Furthermore, the quantum of the husband’s income and the allegations of severe matrimonial torture are highly contested factual disputes. While the wife claims the husband is a well- to-do mason and businessman earning ₹40,000/- per month, the husband maintains that he is a daily-wage labourer earning a meager ₹150/- per day. At the interlocutory stage, courts cannot embark upon a mini-trial to adjudicate such complex, disputed questions of income in the absence of cogent, tested evidence. Such assertions can only be conclusively resolved upon a full-fledged trial where witnesses are examined and cross-examined. 5. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved if the interim arrangement modified by the learned Revisional Court below is left undisturbed at this stage, and the main proceeding itself is directed to be decided on merits post-haste. 6. Accordingly, the revisional application being C.R.R. No. 2709 of 2017 is dismissed for non-prosecution and lack of merit. 7. However, keeping in mind that the main application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been pending since 2016, the following directions are issued: 8. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur, is directed to proceed with the trial of M.R. Case No. 296 of 2016 with utmost expedition. 9. The learned Magistrate shall independently evaluate the evidence adduced by both sides, without being influenced by any tentative observations made either in this order, the order of the Revisional Court, or the initial ex parte order, to determine the final alimony/maintenance payable to the wife and the child. 10. The trial must be concluded and final judgment delivered within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the application is disposed of. 12. All connected applications, if any, stand closed. 13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur immediately for information and necessary compliance. 14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Uday Kumar, J.)