Tag Archives: sec 125 CrPC

Maintenance NOT to every wife ! Only to those who CAN’T maintain themselves !! All HC Gem !

Allahabad High Court

Manmohan Singh vs Smt. Mahindra Kaur on 25 March, 1976

Equivalent citations: 1976 CriLJ 1664

Author: B Katju

Bench: B Katju

ORDER

B.N. Katju, J.

1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., 1973.

2. The opposite party filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. 1973 against the applicant dated 6-5-1974 in the court of C. J. M., Dehradun. The applicant filed his written statement on 4-6-1974. Thereafter the statements of the opposite party and the applicant were recorded by the C. J. M., Dehradun on 23-11-1974 and 6-2-1975 respectively. The C. J. M., Dehradun by his order dated 3-8-1975 directed the applicant to pay Rs. 300 per month to the opposite party as maintenance allowance with effect from 7-5-1974. The applicant filed Criminal Revision No. 33 of 1974 against the aforesaid order which was allowed in part by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun by his order dated 2-9-1975 and the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 150 per month as maintenance allowance to the opposite party with effect from 7-5-1974. https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick?lang=en

3. Under Section 125(1)(a), Cr., P. C. 1973 maintenance allowance cannot be granted to every wife who is neglected by her husband or whose husband refuses to maintain her but can only be granted to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. It may be pointed out that this is a-departure from Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 wherein every wife, whether she was able or was not able to maintain herself, was entitled to maintenance if she was neglected or not maintained by her husband. As it was not alleged by the opposite party in her application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. 1973 and it was also not stated by her in her statement recorded by the C. J. M., Dehradun that she was unable to maintain herself and no finding has been recorded by the C. J, M., Dehradun or the Sessions Judge, Dehradun that the opposite party was unable to maintain herself, the order of the C. J. M., Dehradun dated 3-8-1975 and the order of the Sessions Judge, Dehradun dated 2-9-1975 are clearly illegal. https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick?lang=en

4. This application is accordingly allowed and the order of the C. J. M., Dehradun dated 3-8-1975 and the order of the Sessions Judge, Dehradun dated 2-9-1975 are set aside.

 

Advertisements

Aged Mother-in-law, with no income, entitled to claim maintenance from daughter-in-law. Bom HC

Equivalent Citation: 2009(111)BOMLR1831, 2010(1)Crimes1, 2009(4)MhLj665,MANU/MH/0180/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Revision Application No. 86 of 2007
Decided On: 06.03.2009

Appellants: Smt. Saroj W/o Govind Mukkawar
Vs.
Respondent: Smt. Chandrakalabai Polshetwar and The State of Maharashtra

Hon’ble Judges/Coram:
S.S. Shinde, J.

Criminal – Maintenance – Claim of – Entitlement of Mother-in-law – Section 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Sections 125 and 125(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Respondent No. 1 mother-in-law of present applicant – Applicant got job on compassionate grounds on death of her husband – Also received gratuity etc. – Neglected to maintain Respondent No. 1 – Application claiming maintenance filed by Respondent No. 1 – Application dismissed by learned J.M.F.C. on the ground that mother-in-law not entitled to claim maintenance from daughter-in-law under Section 125 Cr.PC – Revision filed by Respondent No. 1 allowed and applicant directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance to Respondent No. 1 – Hence, present Revision application – Held, at the time of obtaining appointment on compassionate grounds present applicant gave undertaking to support Respondent No. 1 – Deceased only son of Respondent No. 1 – Respondent No. 1 aged person and has no source of income – Respondent No. 1 entitled to claim maintenance from present Applicant – Revision application dismissed

===============================================================

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.86 OF 2007.

Date of decision : 06th MARCH, 2009.

For approval and signature. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.86 OF 2007.

=================================================================

Smt. Saroj w/o Govind Mukkawar, age 39 yrs., occu.service, r/o CIDCO, New Nanded, Dist. Nanded…………. APPLICANT.

VERSUS

  1. Smt. Chandrakalabai Polshetwar age 60 years, occu. nil, r/o CIDCO, New Nanded, Dist. Nanded.
  2. The State of Maharashtra…………. RESPONDENTS

=================================================================
Smt. S.G. Chincholkar, Advocate for applicant.
Shri B.N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Shri N.H. Borade, Addl. P.P. for Respondent No.2.

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J.

RESERVED ON: 13.02.2009.

PRONOUNCED ON:06.03.2009.

JUDGMENT:

  1. This application is filed praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 12.1.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision Application No.139 of 2006 and restoration of the judgment and order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the J.M.F.C., 2nd Court Nanded in M.C.A. No.177/2004.
  2. The brief facts of the case are as under:. The present respondent no.1 filed Misc. Criminal Application No.177/2004 against the present applicant for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The present applicant is daughter-in-law of respondent no.1 herein. It is the case of the original applicant – respondent no.1 herein that she is widow of 65 years old. Her sole son died on 14.3.1995. Her daughter-in-law got employment in Zilla Parishad on compassionate ground after death of her sole son Venkatesh. The present applicant /petitioner is getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. Respondent no.1 herein is unable to maintain herself. The applicant, besides her monthly salary, has received a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- from Zilla Parishad towards gratuity etc. of her deceased husband and thereby she is able to pay separate maintenance. The applicant has driven the present respondent no.1 from her house and thereby refused to maintain her. Therefore, the original applicant -respondent no.1 herein claimed a sum of Rs.1500/-per month towards maintenance.

  3. The learned J.M.F.C. rejected the application of the respondent no.1 herein on the ground that the mother-in-law is not entitled to claim maintenance from her daughter-in-law and said provision does not exist under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

  4. Being aggrieved, the present respondent no.1 filed criminal Revision Petition No.139 of 2006. The revisional Court framed necessary points for its determination and held that the respondent no.1 herein is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of C.P.C. and directed the present applicant to pay Rs.1000/-per month the respondent no.1 herein.

  5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present application is filed by the applicant.

  6. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the application which was filed by respondent no.1 herein was not maintainable under Section 125(1) (d) of Cr.P.C. against the present applicant, who is daughter-in-law of the respondent no.1. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat and another [(1996) 4 SCC 479] and submitted that in the said judgment the Apex Court has held that the stepmother is not entitled for maintenance. The expression “mother” in section 125(1)(d) of Cr.P.C. means only real or natural mother and does not include stepmother. Stepmother is a distinct and separate entity and cannot be equated with the natural mother who has given birth to the child. The learned Counsel further submitted that the present applicant being daughter-in-law of respondent no.1, the revision application of respondent no.1 should not have been entertained by the revisional Court since it was rightly rejected by the J.M.F.C. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

  7. The learned Counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that the son of the respondent no.1 namely Venkatesh, who was husband of the applicant, was working in a school run by Zilla Parishad, Nanded. On 14.3.1995 Venkatesh died and the present applicant received Rs.1,56,000/- towards gratuity etc. and also she got appointment on compassionate ground against service of Venkatesh. The applicant is earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He further submitted that at the time of obtaining said compassionate appointment, the applicant had given an undertaking that she will support the present respondent no.1 – mother-in-law. However, the applicant has not provided any financial assistance to the respondent no.1 and she is residing separately. He further submitted that both the Courts have given a finding that the present applicant is earning Rs.10,000/- per month and neglected to maintain the present respondent no.1. he further submitted that the J.M.F.C. has rejected the application of respondent no.1 only on the ground that the application filed by respondent no.1 against daugter-in-law is not maintainable under Section 125(1)(d) of the Cr.P.C.. He further submitted that the respondent no.1 is old lady, having no source of income, she is surviving on sympathy of her neighbours and is not capable to do any work and to earn her livelihood. He submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the revisional court.

  8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the contents of the application, annexures thereto and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria (supra). I am of the considered view that the revision application deserves to be rejected.

  9. Firstly, the respondent no.1 is old lady having age of more than 65 years and the courts below has recorded the findings that she is not able to maintain herself, she has no source of income. It is pertinent to note that Venkatesh was the only son of respondent no.1 who died and the present applicant has been appointed on compassionate ground against service of Venkatesh in the Zilla Parishad, Nanded. It does not fit in the mouth of the applicant that respondent no.1 being her mother-in-law, is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125(1)(d) of Cr.P.C. Moreover, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for respondent no.1 that at the time of obtaining the appointment on compassionate ground, the present applicant had given an undertaking that she will support the present respondent no.1. The deceased Venkatesh being the only son of respondent no.1 and the applicant had got the employment on compassionate ground and she is earning Rs.10,000/-per month, respondent no.1 is rightly held by the revisional Court as entitled to claim separate maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from the present applicant.

  10. I have perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kirtikant D. Vadodaria (supra). In the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that surviving real and natural born sons who are well to do, the stepmother was not entitled to claim maintenance from stepson. In paragraph 15 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the benevolent provision and ambit of section 125 of Cr.P.C., observed: “….. Consequently to achieve this object a childless stepmother may claim maintenance from her stepson provided she is a widow or her husband, if living, is also incapable of supporting and maintaining her. The obligation of the son to maintain his father, who is unable to maintain himself, is unquestionable. When she claims maintenance from her natural born children, she does so in her status as their ‘mother’. Such an interpretation would be in accord with the explanation attached to Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 because to exclude altogether the personal law applicable to the parties from consideration in matters of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code may not be wholly justified. However, no intention of legislature can be read in Section 125 of the code that even though a mother has her real and natural born son or sons and a husband capable of maintaining her, she could still proceed against her stepson to claim maintenance.”

  11. In that case, the stepmother preferred to claim maintenance only from stepson leaving out her natural born sons and husband who were well to do and, therefore,the Apex Court, in the facts of that case, held that the stepmother is not entitled to claim maintenance from her stepson.

  12. In the present case, it is admitted position that the applicant has secured the employment on the compassionate ground in place of Venkatesh who was the only son of the respondent no.1 and that too, by filing an undertaking that she will take care of respondent no.1. Apart from that, the fact that the respondent no.1 is an old aged person having age of more than 65 years and not able to maintain herself and has no source of livelihood, is not disputed by the applicant herein. The peculiar facts of this case warrants that respondent no.1 is entitled to get maintenance from the present applicant. The revisional Court has recorded the reasons in paragraph 11 and 12 of the judgment and I fully agree with the reasoning given by the revisional Court. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

  13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent no.1 is entitled for maintenance from the applicant. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in pursuant to the order dated 19th April, 2007, the applicant has deposited some amount in the Court out of the amount which was received towards gratuity etc. The respondent no.1 is entitled to withdraw the said amount from the Court.. The revision application is rejected.

[S.S. SHINDE, J ]

PLK/


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting


When a PARAMOUR sought maintenance from his mistress & was denied by AP HC!

A paramour who lived-in with a woman when he was already legally married to another with three other children, tries to file a restitution (RCR – sec 9 HMA) on her !! She seems to have filed a 498a cocktail in response !!. The 498a is quashed because she is NOT the legally wedded wife of that guy. Then this Paramour goes on to file Sec 125 against that woman !!! (yes !) and the lower court seems to have admitted the case. So the wife goes for quashing the case

and the Hon AP HC appreciates the facts and orders “…….When the husband is not entitled to claim maintenance even from his legally wedded wife by pressing into service Section 125 Cr.P.C., the question of claiming maintenance by a paramour from a kept mistress or a husband from his second wife is unimaginable. Allowing a paramour to claim maintenance from his kept mistress or concubine under Section 125 Cr.PC., certainly would amount to making mockery of the provisions of Cr.P.C. If this type of petitions are allowed, the very purpose of Section 125 Cr.PC will be defeated or frustrated.

  1. From a perusal of the record, it is manifest that the first respondent instituted the proceedings against the petitioner with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against her. When the statute itself does not entitle a husband to claim maintenance, petition under Section 125 Cr.PC is not maintainable. ….”

Well.. court cases are stranger than fiction !!

================================================

Andhra High Court

Smt.Malleshwaramma, … vs G.S.Srinivasulu, … on 15 July, 2016

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6481 OF 2010

15-7-2016

Smt.Malleshwaramma, D/o.K.Venkataiah ..PETITIONER

G.S.Srinivasulu, S/o.Satyanarayana And another …RESPONDENTS

Counsel for Petitioner  :Sri C.M.R.Velu

Counsel for Respondent No.1:Ms.G.Sudha
Counsel for Respondent No.2:Public Prosecutor

HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
1.      AIR 1988 SC 644
2.      (2005) 3 SCC 636
3.      2006(2) ALD (Crl.) 493 (AP)
4.      (2014) 1 SCC 188
5.      Keynote address on Legal Education in Social Context delivered at National Law University, Jodhpur on October 12, 2005.
6.      III (2015) DMC 705 (MP)
7.      1982 CRI.L.J. 1022
8.      (2011) 12 SCC 189
9.      Mohabhai Ali Khan v Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, (1928-29) 56 IA 201: AIR 1929 PC 135
10.     (2002) 3 SCC 533
11.     1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
12.     (2009) 3 SCC 78
13.     (1976) 3 SCC 736
14.     (2007) 12 SCC 1

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6481 of 2010

ORDER:

  1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in M.C. No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.
  2. The facts leading to filing of the present criminal petition are as follows: The first respondent herein filed M.C. No.7 of 2010 claiming maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month from the petitioner alleging that she is his legally wedded wife and the first respondent is unable to maintain himself due to ill health. It is the case of the first respondent that his marriage was solemnized with petitioner on 27.10.1994 at Yadagirigutta as per the customs prevailing in their community. Immediately after the marriage, the petitioner joined with him to lead conjugal life and they were blessed with a daughter by name Srilatha. The petitioner left the matrimonial home of the first respondent along with her daughter at the instigation of her parents. Prior to the marriage, the first respondent helped the petitioner to prosecute her studies and get job in Health department. The first respondent filed O.P. No.72 of 2006 for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar and the same was allowed on 14.11.2007. Basing on the complaint of the petitioner, the Station House Officer, Atchampet Police Station, Mahabubnagar District registered a case in Crime No.30 of 2007 for the offences under Section 498A, 506 and 509 IPC against the first respondent. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

  3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is three fold: (1) the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of the first respondent; (2) a husband is not entitled to claim maintenance from his wife under Section 125 Cr.PC; and (3) the proceedings against the petitioner are nothing short of abuse of process of law; therefore it is a fit case to quash the proceedings by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., first respondent is entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner, who is his legally wedded wife. She further submitted that the order passed in O.P. No.72 of 2016 clinchingly establishes that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the first respondent.

  4. To substantiate the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the following decisions: (i) Smt.Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v Anantral Shivaram Adhav , wherein the Honble Apex Court held as follows: 8. We, therefore, hold that the marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of the Code. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (ii) Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia v State of Gujarat , wherein the Honble Apex Court held as follows: 15. .. The marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is therefore not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of the Code or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the ‘Marriage Act’). : (iii) Buddepu Khogayya v Buddepu Kamalu , wherein this court held as follows: 7. Therefore, the averment itself clearly indicates that there is legally wedded wife to the first respondent by the date of marriage of the petitioner. Hence, she cannot be treated as wife as per the provisions of Section 125 Cr.PC and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance.

  5. The learned counsel for the first respondent, while submitting that strict proof of marital relationship is not necessary in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., relied upon the following decisions: (i) Badshah v Urmila Badshah Godse , wherein the Honble Apex Court held as follows: 13.3. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision (Section 125 Cr.PC), the Court is dealing with the marginalized sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve social justice which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.  4. Of late, in this very direction, it is emphasized that the courts have to adopt different approaches in social justice adjudication, which is also known as social context adjudication as mere adversarial approach may special protection and benefits to vulnerable groups in the society. Prof. Madhava Menon describes it eloquently: It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that social context judging is essentially the application of equality jurisprudence as evolved by Parliament and the Supreme Court in myriad situations presented before courts where unequal parties are pitted in adversarial proceedings and where courts are called upon to dispense equal justice. Apart from the social-economic inequalities accentuating the disabilities of the poor in an unequal fight, the adversarial process itself operates to the disadvantage of the weaker party. In such a situation, the Judge has to be not only sensitive to the inequalities of parties involved but also positively inclined to the weaker party if the imbalance were not to result in miscarriage of justice. This result is achieved by what we call social context judging or social justice adjudication . (ii) Roshan Singh Nepali v Meena Nepali , wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as follows: 4. In a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code, the Court is expected to pass appropriate order after being prima facie satisfied about the relation status of the parties. (iii) Aijaz Ahmad Lalri v Smt.Shahjehan Begum , wherein Allahabad High Court held as follows: The proceedings under Section 125, Cr.PC may be akin to civil proceedings, but one important distinction between the two cannot be overlooked, namely, the object behind the enactment of maintenance provisions in the Cr.PC. The crux of the matter always is whether the party claiming maintenance has the means or not. The law of pleading in civil cases may be more strict, but it may not be so when the matter of public policy and its objective are involved. Apart from that, the powers under Section 482 Cr.PC are exercised to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of any law and when the clear finding of fact is that the opposite parties have no means to maintain themselves, the Court will not exercise any such inherent powers in favour of the applicant on account of any defect in pleadings. (iv) Pyla Mutyalamma v Pyla Suri Demudu , wherein the Honble Apex Court held at Para No.1 as follows: Under the law, a second wife whose marriage is void on account of survival of the previous marriage of her husband with a living wife is not a legally wedded wife and she is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC for the sole reason that law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy . But, the law also presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a long number of years and when the man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary is clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.

  6. From the above case law the following principles can be deduced. (1) If a man and woman lived together for such a long time as wife and husband, the wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., notwithstanding establishment of marriage as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act; (2) A man who marries second time by concealing the subsistence of his valid marriage with another woman cannot escape from payment of maintenance to the second wife under Section 125 Cr.PC; 3) A woman who marries a man knowing fully well about subsistence of his valid marriage with another woman is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC. (4) While dealing with the petitions filed under Section 125 Cr.PC prima facie proof of relationship is sufficient to award maintenance.

  7. Let me consider the facts of the case on hand in the light of the above legal principles. Establishment of prima facie relationship of wife and husband is sine qua non to file petition under Section 125 Cr.PC. If the parties to the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., are Hindus, the claimant has to establish that the marriage with the first respondent is legally valid and their marriage is not hit by Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

  8. The crucial question that falls for consideration is whether the first respondent is entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner by filing petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C or not. As per the averments made in the petition (M.C.), the marriage of the first respondent was performed with the petitioner on 27.10.1994 at Yadagirigutta as per the customs prevailing in their community. Basing on the petition averments, one can safely come to a conclusion that the petitioner is the only legally wedded wife of the first respondent. The first respondent filed O.P. No.72 of 2006 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar against the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rites and the same was allowed on 14.11.2007. The first respondent is placing much reliance on the order in the O.P. to establish that the petitioner is his legally wedded wife. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not contest the O.P.; therefore, the court passed the ex parte order. Basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the Station House Officer, Atchampet Police Station registered a case in Crime No.30 of 2007 against the first respondent for the offences under Sections 498A, 506 and 509 IPC. The first respondent obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.P. No.6818 of 2007 on 18.11.2007. For better appreciation of the rival contentions, it is not out of place to extract paragraph No.2 of Crl.P.No.6818 of 2007. 2. As per the said report, the petitioner herein was married and was having three children. He developed contact with her in the year 1994 when she was working at Government Civil Hospital, Perur. They together lived for 10 years at Shadnagar, Mahaboobnagar District and they were blessed with a daughter aged 11 years. It is said that suspecting her character and making wild allegations, he used to abuse her and threaten her saying that he will kill her and her daughter. He also used to abuse on Telephone the staff working in the hospital.

  9. A reading of the above paragraph clearly shows that the first respondent has taken a specific stand that he developed intimacy with the petitioner in the year 1994. If the contents of this criminal petition are taken into consideration, the first respondent did not marry the petitioner. The first respondent also filed Crl.P.No.2745 of 2007 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him in Crime No.30 of 2007 on the file of the Station House Officer, Atchampet Police Station. This court, vide order dated 20.7.2007, allowed the criminal petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the first respondent in Crime No.30 of 2007 for the offence under Section 498A IPC. The relevant observations in the order read as follows: Even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken as true and correct, they do not go to show that the de facto complainant is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. At best, it would go to show that the de facto complainant was kept mistress. It is also stated that the petitioner was having wife and three children. The petitioner was harassing her after making her as his second wife. He was suspecting the conduct of the de facto complainant and was abusing her in vulgar language and he also threatened to kill her and her child. Therefore, the allegations do not show prima facie case of the offences under Sections 506 and 509 IPC. Hence, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. Prima facie Section 498A IPC has no application. Hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

  10. This court made an observation that the petitioner is only kept mistress of the first respondent basing on the stand taken by the first respondent in Crl.P. No.2745 of 2007.

  11. Before filing M.C. No.7 of 2010, the first respondent has taken specific stand that he developed intimacy with petitioner in the year 1994 which resulted in the birth of Srilatha. The fact remains that the petitioner was having legally wedded wife before developing contacts with petitioner in 1994. Even as per the case of the first respondent, he was blessed with three children through his first wife. In order to constitute a valid marriage, neither of the partiesif they are Hindusshall have a spouse living at the time of marriage in view of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

  12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated in the decisions cited supra, I am unable to accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent.

  13. Even assuming, but not admitting, that the first respondent is husband of the petitioner, the point to be determined in this case is, whether a husband is entitled to claim maintenance from wife by filing petition under Section 125 Cr.PC. It is not out of place to extract hereunder the relevant portion of Section 125 Cr.PC.

  14. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents: (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.

  15. The object of Section 125 Cr.PC is to wipe off the tears of destitute wife, hapless legitimate or illegitimate children and parents. The Parliament in its wisdom incorporated Section 125 Cr.PC to achieve the above social object. There is a social and legal obligation on the part of a man to look after the welfare of his wife, legitimate and illegitimate minor children and parents. There is no ambiguity in the language employed in Section 125 Cr.PC.

  16. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that the court shall not substitute or omit any of the words used in the statute unless there is ambiguity in it. The court has to interpret the words used in a statute in the context and the purpose for which it is used. In interpreting a statutory provision, the first and foremost rule of interpretation is the literal construction. All that the Court has to see, at the very outset, is what the provision says. If the provision is unambiguous and if, from the provision, the legislative intent is clear, the Court need not call into aid the other rules of construction of statutes. The other rules of construction of statutes are called into aid only when the legislative intent is not clear.

  17. In Padma Sundara Rao v State of T.N. , the Honble Apex Court in paragraph No.12 (relevant portion) observed as follows: It is well-settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has been said.

  18. It appears, the Parliament, in its wisdom, intentionally not included the words husband or spouse after the words his wife and preceding the words unable to maintain in clause (a) of Sub- section (1) of Section 125 Cr.PC; therefore, a husband is not entitled to file application under Section 125 Cr.PC claiming maintenance from the wife. My view is supported by Section 24 of HM Act, which reads as follows: 24 Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the first respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the first respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable: Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.

  19. A perusal of Section 24 of H.M. Act makes it clear that not only the wife but also the husband is entitled to claim maintenance on showing that he has no independent source of income. However, the husband will have to satisfy the court that either due to physical or mental disability he is handicapped to earn and support his livelihood.

  20. After reading Section 24 of H.M. Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C., the court can safely arrive at a conclusion that under Section 125 Cr.P.C., husband is not entitled to claim maintenance from his wife. When the husband is not entitled to claim maintenance even from his legally wedded wife by pressing into service Section 125 Cr.P.C., the question of claiming maintenance by a paramour from a kept mistress or a husband from his second wife is unimaginable. Allowing a paramour to claim maintenance from his kept mistress or concubine under Section 125 Cr.PC., certainly would amount to making mockery of the provisions of Cr.P.C. If this type of petitions are allowed, the very purpose of Section 125 Cr.PC will be defeated or frustrated.

  21. From a perusal of the record, it is manifest that the first respondent instituted the proceedings against the petitioner with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance against her. When the statute itself does not entitle a husband to claim maintenance, petition under Section 125 Cr.PC is not maintainable. (i) In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , the Honble Supreme Court held at clause (7) of paragraph No.102 as follows: (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. (ii) In V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat , the Honble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.23 as follows: 23. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure saves the inherent power of the court. It serves a salutary purpose viz. a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years although no case has been made out against him. (iii) In State of Karnataka v L.Muniswamy , the Supreme Court observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., entitles the High Court to quash proceedings when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. (iv) A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v State of Uttaranchal , after examining the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, observed that inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court, then the Court would be fully justified in preventing injustice by invoking the inherent powers of the Court.

  22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would certainly amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in order to secure ends of justice. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

  23. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings in M.C.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.

T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

July 15, 2016.


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

NO interim maintenance 2 qualified (doctor &498a) wife even IF husband can’t prove her earnings! P&H HC

Punjab and Haryana HC denies Interim maintenance to a well qualified doctor wife who files 498a and CrPC 125 cocktail !! Court categorically asserts that “…Everyone has to earn for himself or herself or at least make an effort and would not sit idle…..”

A classic case where a doctor wife is first refused maintenance by the Magistrate court, then on revision before the sessions court she is granted Rs 10000 p.m. and the P & H HC rightfully orders that she IS NOT ELIGIBLE for maintenance as she is a well qualified Physiotherapist doctor !!

The Hon HC orders and we quote “….The wife in her petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. did not disclose that she was a Physiotherapist or was earning but in the First Information Report lodged with the police in September 2013 she had mentioned that she was a Physiotherapist (doctor). The information was provided by the complainant. There was no reason for the complainant to mention that. When it has been specifically mentioned it can be assumed that she was a practicing Physiotherapist. The husband is posted in Rajasthan. It is not possible for him to collect the information whether she was running a clinic or about her income. The trial Court had noted this and had declined the application for interim maintenance and rightly so. The Revisional Court based on assumptions wrongly allowed maintenance at the interim stage. It should have taken some affidavit from the wife. The wife had to explain how that fact was introduced in the FIR. There was a categoric assertion in the FIR that she was a Physiotherapist, it appears that the wife was hiding facts. She is capable of earning. The trial Court is yet to consider the case on merits. It will have to determine whether a qualified woman who can get a job can sit idle and insist on maintenance. Everyone has to earn for himself or herself or at least make an effort and would not sit idle. See Mamta Jaiswal versus Rajesh Jaiswal 2000(3) MPLJ 100. The order passed by the Revisional Court is set aside……”

======================================

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Criminal Revision No. 2625 of 2014 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 29.09.2016

Monu Songra ….Petitioner

Versus

Pinki ….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.K.Ganga, Advocate for the respondent.


ANITA CHAUDHRY, J (ORAL)

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.6.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa who allowed interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the wife reversing the order of the Magistrate who had dismissed the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The parties were married on 27.11.2010. The husband is a Constable in Rajasthan. There is no child from this marriage. The wife had claimed that she had conceived but it resulted in miscarriage on 1.3.2011. Allegations were made that there were demands of dowry and she was not treated well. She claimed that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. The petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed in February 2013. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

The Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 3.10.2013 dismissed the application and the reasons are disclosed in para 8 of the order which reads as under:- “After hearing ld. Counsel for the parties and having gone through record carefully I am of the considered opinion that the application is liable to be dismissed. It is admitted case of the parties that they married to each other. It is also admitted case of the parties that they got strained relations between them. It is also admitted fact that no child was born out this wedlock. It is also admitted fact that criminal case u/s 498-A IPC has been registered against the respondent at the instance of the complainant. It is also admitted case that the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was dismissed as withdrawn. No doubt there are counter allegations against each other and both the parties are trying to make the other party responsible for disturbing the matrimonial life. But in this application, only one this is to be examined as to whether the petitioner is unable to maintain herself or whether he or she is having any sufficient means of income. The copy of FIR mentioned above clearly shows that the petitioner has categorically stated therein that she is physiotherapist doctor meaning thereby that she is well educated and respondent has categorically stated that she is earning 25,000/- per month. Even this amount may be exaggerated however it can be easily inferred that she might have been earning sufficient income maintain herself.”

Aggrieved by the judgment, a revision was preferred by the wife. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide its order dated 13.6.2014 was of the view that even if the wife had a professional degree it would not matter and she would have to gain sufficient experience to earn and there was no allegation that she was working as a doctor in an institute or had opened her own clinic. It allowed the revision and awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance.

The petitioner claims that the wife did not want to live with him and she had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights but later the petition was withdrawn as he had appeared and made a statement that he was willing to keep her at his place of posting but the wife refused to accompany him. It was pleaded that the wife had got an FIR registered against him. It was also pleaded that the petitioner had concealed that she was a Physiotherapist before her marriage and was working and she did not mention this fact in her petition and it was a case of concealment. It was pleaded that his basic salary was Rs. 8550/- per month and after deduction, the carry home salary was 15065/- and the Court below had allowed Rs. 10,000/- taking the major portion of his salary, when he had his old parents to look after.

I have heard submissions of both the sides.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the judgment dated 30.4.2016 to show that the trial had ended in acquittal. He has placed on record a copy of the FIR where the wife had described herself as a physiotherapist (doctor).

The submission on behalf of the petitioner was that the wife had deserted the husband and she did not want to go and live in Rajasthan and she herself withdrew the petition and it was a case of concealment of fact. It was urged that the wife had done her diploma in Physiotherapy after her 12th class and thereafter had completed her Graduation sometime in 3 of 5 2007 and the marriage took place in 2010 and the wife was working even before marriage and the Revisional Court assumed that it would take a number of years for her to settle in her profession. It was urged that the Court did not consider the fact that there was an admission that she was a Physiotherapist and this information was given by her at the time of lodging of the FIR in September 2013. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

The submission, on the other hand, was that the respondent was not earning and the husband is under a duty to provide for the wife.

The wife in her petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. did not disclose that she was a Physiotherapist or was earning but in the First Information Report lodged with the police in September 2013 she had mentioned that she was a Physiotherapist (doctor). The information was provided by the complainant. There was no reason for the complainant to mention that. When it has been specifically mentioned it can be assumed that she was a practicing Physiotherapist. The husband is posted in Rajasthan. It is not possible for him to collect the information whether she was running a clinic or about her income. The trial Court had noted this and had declined the application for interim maintenance and rightly so. The Revisional Court based on assumptions wrongly allowed maintenance at the interim stage. It should have taken some affidavit from the wife. The wife had to explain how that fact was introduced in the FIR. There was a categoric assertion in the FIR that she was a Physiotherapist, it appears that the wife was hiding facts. She is capable of earning. The trial Court is yet to consider the case on merits. It will have to determine whether a qualified woman who can get a job can sit idle and insist on maintenance. Everyone has to earn for himself or herself or at least make an effort and would not sit idle. See Mamta Jaiswal versus Rajesh Jaiswal 2000(3) MPLJ 100. The order passed by the Revisional Court is set aside.

Before parting with the order, it is necessary to mention that the petition filed in 2013 has still not been decided. The litigation can really corrode human relationship and it is the duty of the Court to curtail it. There is no need to hurry but procrastination should not be manifest. The Courts should be in complete control over the proceedings and should not permit the lis to be prolonged and if either party is delaying the proceedings, necessary steps should be taken.

The petition is allowed. Order dated 13.6.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, is set aside.

Nothing contained in this order shall be taken as an opinion on merits. The trial Court would independently decide the case on the basis of the evidence that shall be adduced by the parties.

(ANITA CHAUDHRY)
JUDGE

September 29, 2016

Gurpreet


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting


Sessions & HC have concurrent revisionary jurisdiction, so IF you loose @ sessions use 482 @ HC

Wife has been awarded maintenance in 2013 ! Husband delaying maintenance by filing revision, 482 etc etc !!

However this case illustrates an important point of law, as extracted below

Key excerpts :
“….4. The Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent revisional jurisdiction and if a person elects to move the Sessions Court, he is precluded from filing a second revision petition before the High Court under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. However, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable, when it is shown that grave illegality has been committed by the Courts below, resulting in undue prejudice to the party…..”

=============================

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 19.09.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

CRL.O.P.No.21143 of 2016

Elumalai .. Petitioner
Vs

A.Mangathal .. Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and order dated 03.12.2015 in CRP.No.21/2014, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, confirming the order dated 08.10.2013 in M.C.No.9 of 2012, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1 and to set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr. J.Antony Jesus

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in CRP.No.21 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam, confirming the order dated 08.10.2013 in M.C.No.9 of 2012, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1 and to set aside the order dated 03.12.2015.

  1. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name. Mangathal got married to Elumalai in the year 1970 and they have two children through their wedlock. Their matrimonial life ran into rough weather, resulting the spouses getting estranged.
  2. Mangathal filed MC.No.9 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tindivanam under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against Elumalai. The learned Magistrate by order dated 08.10.2013, has directed Elumalai to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as maintenance per month. Aggrieved by the order, Elumalai preferred CRP.No.21 of 2014, which was dismissed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam on 03.12.2015, confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tindivanam. Now, Elumalai is before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

  3. The Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent revisional jurisdiction and if a person elects to move the Sessions Court, he is precluded from filing a second revision petition before the High Court under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. However, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable, when it is shown that grave illegality has been committed by the Courts below, resulting in undue prejudice to the party.

  4. Mr.J.Antony Jesus, learned counsel appearing for Elumalai submitted that Elumalai had already settled some properties in favour of Mangathal as permanent alimony and therefore, he cannot be directed to pay further maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Both the Courts below have gone into this factual aspect and negatived the claim of Elumalai.

  5. The Courts below have awarded a paltry maintenance of Rs.1,000/- in favour of Mangathal. This Court does not find any serious illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In the result, the petition is devoid of merits and dismissed.

19.09.2016 ds To

1.The II Additional District Judge, Tindivanam.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Tindivanam,

  1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.N.PRAKASH, J.

ds Crl.OP.No.21143 of 2016 19.09.2016