Back
2014 Supreme(Kar) 708
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
K.N. PHANEENDRA, J.
Meharunnisa – Petitioner
Versus
Syed Habeeb @ Syed Habeebulla – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 693 of 2014
Decided On : 18.12.2014
Sri. Bopanna B, Advocate BPDS Associates.
Smt. Bhushani Kumar, Advocate.
Headnote:CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 125 (c): [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Expression "injury" - Held, The word "injury" as contemplated under Section 125(c) is to be interpreted in such a manner so that it would benefit the persons who are entitled to claim maintenance in that particular provision in order to survive till they get other alternative for their subsistence. Therefore, in this background the said provision is to be interpreted in such a manner so as to advance justice and to suppress the mischief. Any interpretation which causes harm or injury as such to the members of the Society and it goes contrary to the very purpose and intention of the legislators in providing such speedy remedy to the parties, such interpretations should be avoided. In this background it is worth to bear in mind the rules of construction of Statutes.
Section 125(c) has to be understood along with the main object of introducing the provisions under Sections 125 to 128 of Cr. PC and the Court should bear in mind that the provisions have to be interpreted in such a manner, that it is in conformity with the main intention of the legislators in bringing those provisions into the statute book. Therefore, if the words are susceptible to two interpretations, the interpretation which is more harmonious with the intention of the legislator with reference object of the statute, though it may be less correct grammatically, but if the words are plain and capable of holding one meaning, effect should be given to them irrespective of the conclusion that might play from it.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - Section 125(c): [K.N. Phaneendra, J] Maintenance -Claim by major Mohammedan daughter - Held, The Mohammedan daughter who has got a right to be maintained by her father under Muslim personal Law, the infringement of such right of that lady itself amounts to an injury which can be very well be equated to the word ’ injury-used in Section 125(c) of Cr. P.C. Physical or mental abnormality has to be established before the Court of law by means of evidence. Physical injury can be perused by the appearance or by means of senses but mental injury is nothing but malice in law which can be gathered on the basis of violation of a legal right to claim maintenance vested under any law for the time being in force including Section 125 of Cr. P.C. If such right is infringed by the adversary then automatically it will fall under Section 125(c) of Cr. PC. The other riders which are there in the said provision also have to establish that they are unable to maintain themselves has to be strictly complied. If that right to claim maintenance of that lady is infringed, definitely it can be called as an injury which can very well be fitted into the definition of mental injury and that must have been the intention of the legislators and the parliamentarians in introducing the word ’ injury’ under Section 125(c) of the Cr. P.C.
Only major daughters whether Hindu, Mohammadan, Parsi or Christian wherever their rights are recognized under any other personal law or statute for the time being in force that they are entitled for maintenance at the hands of their father or anybody till they get married, if they are unable to maintain themselves and father is capable of maintaining them. Then only the word ’ injury’ used in Section 125(c) can be pressed into service in order to hold that their right has been infringed and therefore, they are entitled for maintenance under Section 125. It goes without saying that the said provision is not applicable particularly to major sons though they are not married because of the simple reason that no law recognized the major sons are entitled to maintenance till they get married. But they are also entitled to maintenance only if they are suffering from any mental or physical abnormality or injury.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sections 43 & 44: [K.N. Phaneendra, J] What amounts to injury ? Held, Section 44 clearly indicates that injury need not be in a particular form, it may be either to the body or to the mind or to the reputation or property of a person and that injury is caused illegally. Therefore, the word "injury" has got a definite and significant connection with the word "illegal" as defined under Section 43 of I.P.C. Therefore, it can be understood that if any person legally bound to do some act if he fails to do that act it is an offence or if he fails to do that act which he is bound by any law for the time being in force or if he does any particular act which is prohibited by any law which give rise to a civil or criminal action in favour of the owner of that right, such illegality itself amounts to an ’ injury-if it is done to body, mind, reputation or property. Therefore, the ’injury’ can very well be explained that if due to any illegal act if a person suffers any bodily injury, mental injury or injury to his reputation or to property, then such sufferings can be called as an ’injury’.
1. I, feel it is just and appropriate to start this judgment by quoting a great universal verse, in Manusmrithi which often referred with regard to the protection of the women, which is being admired with great respects, irrespective of caste, creed, colour and religion.
“Pita rakshathi kaumare, bhartha rakshathi youvane, Putrah rakshathi vrudhapye, na stree swatantryam arhathi”
(Original is in Sanskrit)
Means a women is protected by father in her childhood, her husband protects her in youth, and in old age she should be protected by her son. At no stage in her life should a woman be left alone and destitute. She deserves protection by man at every stage of her life.
2. In the case on hand, a major Mohammedan girl (unmarried major daughter) who succeeded before the J.M.F.C. Tumkur in Criminal Misc. No. 455 of 2007 in getting maintenance of Rs. 800 per month against her father till her marriage under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. but failed in the Revision Petition before the Fast Track Court, approached this Court for restoration of the orders of the J.M.F.C. by setting aside the order passed by the Fast Track Court, Tumkur in Cr. R.P. No. 149 of 2012 dated 25.10.2013.
3. The factual matrix emanate from the records are that the petitioner Meharunnisa filed a petition u/s. 125 of Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs. 3000 per month till the date of her marriage against her father Syed Habeeb (the respondent herein). Subsequently, the respondent has developed hostile attitude towards the petitioner and her mother, and deserted them by contracting another marriage. He did not make arrangements for maintenance of the petitioner. He also neglected and refused to maintain her though capable of maintaining the petitioner. Having no source of income, being unable to maintain, the petitioner has made several attempts by making repeated requests to the respondent to provide her basic needs for sustenance. All her attempts went in vain, she inevitably filed a petition u/s. 125 of Cr. P.C. before the trial Court in C. Misc. No. 455 of 2007.
4. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that though she is major, she is helpless woman being incapable of maintaining herself. The respondent who is gainfully employed in Karnataka State Reserve Police, drawing handsome salary and capable of maintaining the petitioner, he is bound to maintain the petitioner till her marriage.
4(1) This petition was contested by the respondent before the trial Court. He has contended that he gave Talak (divorce) to his wife, who is none other than the mother of the petitioner, on 19.2.1993 itself. During that time the petitioner was aged about 8 years. At that time, the question of maintenance to the major daughter did not arise. The petitioner voluntarily left by severing the relationship with the respondent along with her mother and continued to stay with her mother. Though the respondent made request to hand over their child (daughter) to him but the mother of the petitioner refused to part with the child (daughter) by giving assurance before the Jamath that she will take care of the child (daughter). Therefore, he is not liable to pay any maintenance to his daughter now. It is further contended that the petitioner is hale and healthy, physically capable of working, educated and she is working at KGM Engineering Works in KIADB Industrial area at Tumkur and she is getting a salary of Rs. 3,000 per month. Therefore, she is not a lady who is unable to maintain herself. The petition was filed only with a sole intention to harass the respondent. Therefore, he has pleaded for dismissal of the petition.
5. After due contest, learned trial Judge considering all the aspects of the matter has allowed the petition granting a sum of Rs. 800 per month as maintenance in favour of the petitioner from the date of institution of the petition till the date of marriage of the petitioner.
6. The above said order of the learned Magistrate was challenged before the
