Back
2007(8) Supreme 525
Supreme Court of india
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Aftab Alam, JJ.
Chaturbhuj — Petitioner
versus
Sita Bai — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1627 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4379 of 2006)
Decided on : 27-11-2007
(b)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125 – Section 125 is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children – It falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution – The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution – It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. (Para 5)
AIR 1978 SC 1807; (2005)2 Supreme 503 – Relied upon.
(c)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125 – The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband – The wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family – The expression “unable to maintain herself” does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. (Para 8)
AIR 1975 SC 83 – Relied upon.
(d)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125 – The concurrent findings of he courts below being essentially factual and not perverse, no interference required. (Para 9)
Facts of the case :
1.The respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the appellant. The appellant and the respondent had entered into marital knot about four decades back and for more than two decades they were living separately. In the application it was claimed that she was unemployed and unable to maintain herself.
2.Trial Court found that the applicant-respondent did not have sufficient means to maintain herself.
3.The revision was dismissed.
4.The High Court noticed that the conclusions have been arrived at on appreciation of evidence and, therefore, there is no scope for any interference.
Findings of the Court:
Concurrent findings of the courts below being factual and not perverse, there is no scope for interference.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
The court in this case did not categorically hold that the sine qua non for the grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is that the wife must be unable to maintain herself and that there must be wilful neglect or refusal on the part of the husband. Instead, the court emphasized that the expression "unable to maintain herself" refers to the means available to the wife while she was living with her husband, and it does not include the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive. Furthermore, the court noted that the essential condition is that the wife must be unable to maintain herself, and the existence of wilful neglect or refusal by the husband is also a necessary element for the maintenance order. The court observed that in the present case, these conditions were not satisfied, implying that the specific requirement of wilful neglect or refusal was not established.
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—
1.Leave granted.
2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr. P.C.’). The challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Neemuch, M.P. as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, M.P. The respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance from the appellant. Undisputedly, the appellant and the respondent had entered into marital knot about four decades back and for more than two decades they were living separately. In the application it was claimed that she was unemployed and unable to maintain herself. Appellant had retired from the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture and was getting about Rs. 8,000/- as pension and a similar amount as house rent. Besides this, he was lending money to people on interest. The appellant claimed Rs.10,000/- as maintenance. The stand of the appellant was that the applicant was living in the house constructed by the present appellant who had purchased 7 bighas of land in Ratlam in the name of the applicant. She let out the house on rent and since 1979 was residing with one of their sons. The applicant sold the agricultural land on 13.3.2003. The sale proceeds were still with the applicant. The appellant was getting pension of about Rs.5,700/- p.m. and was not getting any house rent regularly. He was getting 2-3 thousand rupees per month. The plea that the appellant had married another lady was denied. It was further submitted that the applicant at the relevant point of time was staying in the house of the appellant and electricity and water dues were being paid by him. The applicant can maintain herself from the money received from the sale of agricultural land and rent. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found that the applicant-respondent did not have sufficient means to maintain herself.
3.Revision petition was filed by the present appellant. Challenge was to the direction to pay Rs.1500/- p.m. by the trial Court. The stand was that the applicant was able to maintain herself from her income was reiterated. The revisional court analysed the evidence and held that the appellant’s monthly income was more than Rs.10,000/- and the amount received as rent by the respondent-claimant was not sufficient to maintain herself. The revision was accordingly dismissed. The matter was further carried before the High Court by filing an application in terms of Section 482 Cr. P.C. The High Court noticed that the conclusions have been arrived at on appreciation of evidence and, therefore, there is no scope for any interference.
4.Section 125 Cr. P.C. reads as follows:
“125. (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 not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct :
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor fe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
