JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent No. 10-State.

2. None present for the respondents No. 1 to 9 though served.

3. Perused the records.

4. The petitioners challenge the order dated 17-7-1992 passed by the Magistrate and confirmed by the revisional Court by order dated 22-12-1992. The learned Magistrate has declared the proceedings for execution of the order of maintenance to have been abated on account of the death of the husband of the petitioner No. 1 placing reliance upon the decision in the matter of (Ambadas Bajirao v. Annapurna Bai)1, reported in A.I.R. 1953 Nagpur 248. The impugned judgment is sought to be challenged by the petitioners and the learned Advocate for the petitioners placing reliance upon the decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court in the matter of (Prithviraj Singh v. Pavanvir Kaur)2, reported in 1986 Cri.L.J. 1432 has contended that the courts below have failed to consider as to whether the estate of the deceased could have been burdened to the extent of the order of grant of maintenance was sought to be executed till the death of the husband of the petitioner or not.

6. The learned Single Judge of the Nagpur High Court in the matter of Ambadas Bajirao has held that claim for arrears of maintenance abates on the death of the person against whom an order under section 488(1) has been made and cannot be enforced thereafter against his estate. The decision is based on the premises that the deceased husband cannot, after his death, be taken to have failed, without sufficient reason, to comply with the order of maintenance. On the other hand, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prithiviraj's case has held that the estate of the husband cannot be burdened with the enforceability of the maintenance order under the Criminal Procedure Code for any period beyond the date of the husband's death but is enforceable against it for the period till the husband's death. It is to be noted that section 125(1) clearly casts a burden on the husband to pay maintenance allowance in case of his failure to maintain the wife or negligence on his part to maintain his wife pursuant to an application, complaining about such negligence and refusal, by the wife and after satisfying other ingredients of the said section. In other words, during the lifetime of the husband he is liable to pay the maintenance allowance to his wife in case of his neglect or refusal to maintain her. Being so, the sufficient reasons for not complying with the order of maintenance passed under section 125(1) are to be considered in relation to the period for which the maintenance allowance granted under a particular order. In other words while considering the aspect of sufficiency of the reasons for non-compliance of the order of maintenance it will have to be seen whether the husband had such sufficient cause not to comply with the order prior to his death. In case of failure to disclose sufficient cause during such period certainly the estate of the husband can be burdened. Considering this aspect the view taken by the Punjab Haryana High Court apparently appears to be most possible and probable view. It is to be noted that the learned Single Judge of the Punjab Haryana High Court while delivering the said decision has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal)3, reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1807 wherein it was observed that the provisions contained in section 125 is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 and therefore the Apex Court had no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not pertrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. Considering the said observations of the Apex Court in relation to the provision

Click Here to Read the rest of this document