1. Challenge to a High Court order concerning maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1551
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI., D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.
Manoj Kumar - Petitioners
Versus
Champa Devi - Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10137 of 2015
Decided on : 06-04-2017
Important Points
Consistent interpretation of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the court over the last two decades influenced the decision not to interfere with the impugned order.
Subject
Criminal Law - Maintenance Laws
Act Referred
Headnote
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Interpretation and Application
Fact of the Case:
The court reviewed the impugned order and found it to be based on consistent interpretations of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code as established in previous court decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no justification to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the special leave petition.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The consistent interpretation of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the court over the last two decades influenced the decision not to interfere with the impugned order.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The court dismissed the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution (!) . - The impugned order is based on consistent interpretations of Section 125 CrPC as established by prior decisions over the last two decades (!) (!) . - The decision references Vanamala (Smt) v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta (1995) 5 SCC 299 as part of the basis for not interfering (!) . - The judgment notes no justification to interfere with the impugned order, leading to dismissal of the petition (!) . - Advocates for the petitioner and respondent are listed, indicating representation in the proceedings (!) . - The order being reviewed is Manoj Kumar v. Champa Devi, Cr. MMO No. 230 of 2014, dated 9.4.2015 (H.P.) (!) . - The final decision states: "The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed" (!) .
What is the basis for the court’s decision to dismiss the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution?
What is the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC as applied by this Court over the last two decades in relation to this case?
What are the facts and reasoning the Court relies on from Vanamala (Smt) v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta and how do they influence the outcome?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia, Aftab Ali Khan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Anil Nag, Arun Singh, Advocates.
For the Petitioner:Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia, Aftab Ali Khan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Anil Nag, Arun Singh, Advocates.
Table of Contents
2. Submissions regarding the interpretation of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the validity of the impugned order. (Para 1 )
3. The impugned order correctly follows consistent Supreme Court interpretations of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and its explanation. (Para 2 )
4. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including the explanation under sub-section (1), must be interpreted in accordance with established Supreme Court precedents. (Para 2 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed; impugned order upheld. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. How should Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including the explanation under sub-section (1), be interpreted?
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including the explanation under sub-section (1), must be interpreted consistently with the established precedents of the Supreme Court. (Para 2 )
ORDER :
1. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at some length.
2. Having perused the impugned order [ Manoj Kumar v. Champa Devi, Cr. MMO No. 230 of 2014 . D/d. 9.4.2015 (H.P.)], we are satisfied, that the same is based on the two decisions rendered by this Court, firstly, Vanamala (Smt) v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta, (1995) 5 SCC 299, and secondly, Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.) and others, 2000(3) SCC 180. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including the explanation under sub-section (1) thereof, has been consistently interpreted by this Court, for the last two decades. The aforesaid consistent view has been followed by the High Court while passing the impugned order.
3. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no justification whatsoever, to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
