Back
2008 Supreme(AP) 861
2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 683 (AP)
G. YETHIRAJULU, J.
Maddala Nagaratnam - Appellant
Versus
Maddaala Ranga Rao and another - Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No.549 OF 2004
Decided on : 28-8-2008
Counsel for petitioner: Mr. P. Vinayaka Swamy
Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. I.V.N. Raju
Counsel for respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Articles 15, 39 – Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 125 – Divorce – Maintenance – Petitioner preferred present Revision Case contending that Revision Court ought to have seen that divorced wife is also entitled for maintenance; that the divorce deed was obtained behind the back of the petitioner and that there is no valid divorce as there is no custom in their caste, therefore, requested to allow the Revision Case by setting aside the order passed by the Revision Court – Held, Section 125 of Cr.P.C. provides a swift and cheap remedy against any person who, despite means, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, which includes a woman after divorce who has not remarried, his minor or major child, either legitimate or illegitimate, his father or mother when they are unable to maintain themselves – Primary object of the Section is to prevent starvation of vagrancy – It is a measure of social justice falling within the constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) and 39 of the Constitution enacted to protect the weaker Sections of the community – Object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his wife, children and parents so that they are not left beggared and destituted on the scrap-heap of the society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence – By introducing Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the section must receive a liberal interpretation of the sense the words permit – Power to be exercised under this Section is discretionary – Court has to exercise such discretion in a judicious manner consistent with the language of the constitution by keeping other relevant circumstances – Court is of the view that Sessions Judge applied the letter of the law without considering the object behind it, therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge lacks rationality and the objectivity and it is liable to be set aside – Criminal Revision Case Allowed
This Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner in M.C. No.41 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram.
2. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the maintenance case. The petitioner filed the Maintenance Case for granting of maintenance and the trial Court granted Rs.250/- towards maintenance per month after examining the evidence placed by both parties. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed C.R.P.No.89 of 2001 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and the learned Sessions Judge allowed the C.R.P. by setting aside the order of the trial Court in M.C.No.41 of 2000.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision Case contending that the Revision Court ought to have seen that the divorced wife is also entitled for maintenance; that the divorce deed was obtained behind the back of the petitioner and that there is no valid divorce as there is no custom in their caste, therefore, requested to allow the Revision Case by setting aside the order passed by the Revision Court.
4. The averments made by the petitioner in M.C.No.41 of 2000 are briefly as follows:
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed about 30 years back. She lead happy marital life and during the wedlock, she gave birth to one daughter by name Venkata Lakshmi Kumari. The respondent is addicted to vices and neglected the petitioner and her daughter. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is subsisting. The respondent, at the instigation of his parents, married one Venkatanarasamma of Vankayalapalem. The respondent was the close relative of the petitioner's mother and due to love and affection, gold was given to the petitioner, but the respondent sold away the said gold and purchased Ac.1-70 cents of land in Anakoderu Village and also purchased an extent of 8 cents of house site and constructed a two portion tiled house. The second female child was born and the said child died about one month after the birth. The respondent intentionally refused and neglected to maintain the petitioner and her daughter and necked her out. Since then, the petitioner is residing at her parents' house. Her father became old and he is unable to do any work to maintain his family. The petitioner was suffering from nurves weakness and severe head ache. Due to financial problem, she is unable to meet the medical expenses, therefore, she could not undergo any treatment. The respondent got sufficient properties to maintain the petitioner and her daughter. She gave a legal notice, for which the respondent gave a reply with false allegations. The petitioner has no properties and she is unable to maintain herself. The respondent, in addition to the land, cultivating an extent of Acs.5-00 as cultivating tenant and doing money lending business, milk business, hiring double bullock cart etc. The respondent also rented his house for Rs.250/- per month and he is earning about Rs.1,00,000/- per annum, therefore, the petitioner requested to grant maintenance at Rs.1,500/- per month.
5. The respondent filed the counter with the following averments in brief:
The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The other allegations in the petition are false. Eversince the marriage, there was no proper understanding between the petitioner and the respondent. In the year 1970, the petitioner and the respondent agreed to dissolve the marriage and the petitioner received Rs.1,400/- towards full settlement of her maintenance. Eversince, the petitioner has been living separately from the respondent and there is no connection between them. The petitioner has no right to demand any maintenance from the respondent. The divorce deed, dated 30-08-1970 indicated that in full settlement of the maintenance from the respondent, the petitioner and her daughter agreed for the same. The d
