Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Urvashi Aggarwal and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Inderpaul Aggarwal – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P.No.549 of 2018
Decided on 5.10.2021
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125 – Maintenance – Object and purpose – Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a tool for social justice enacted to ensure that women and children are protected from a life of potential vagrancy and destitution – Conceptualisation of Section 125 was meant to ameliorate financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home – It is a means to secure woman’s sustenance, along with that of children – Statutory provision entails that if husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities – While adjudicating a matter pertaining to this provision, it must be borne in mind that dominant object of Section 125 is to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those individuals, who have means as well as moral obligation, to support those who are unable to support themselves – Purport and object of Act, must be read in its entirety in order to ensure that interpretation of Court does not further mischief that was sought to be curbed by legislature in first place – Social welfare legislations cannot and should not be interpreted in a narrow manner because doing so will defeat the purpose for enactment of such legislation and will become counterproductive. (Paras 6, 8 and 19)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 125 and 482 – Maintenance – Entitlement – In majority of households, women are unable to work due to socio-cultural as well as structural impediments, and cannot financially support themselves – However, in households wherein women are working and are earning sufficiently to maintain themselves, it does not automatically mean that husband is absolved of his responsibility to provide sustenance for his children – Father has equal duty to provide for his children and there cannot be a situation wherein it is only mother who has to bear burden of expenses for raising and educating children – Court cannot shut its eyes to reality that simply attaining majority does not translate into understanding that major son is earning sufficiently – At the age of 18, it can be safely assumed that son is either graduating from 12th standard or is in his first year of college – More often than not, it does not place him in a position wherein he can earn to sustain or maintain himself – It further places entire burden on mother to bear expenses of educating children without any contribution from father, and Court cannot countenance such a situation – Context of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that wife and children of husband are not left in a state of destitution after divorce – Mother cannot be burdened with entire expenditure on education of her son just because he has completed 18 years of age, and father cannot be absolved of all responsibilities to meet education expenses of his son because son may have attained age of majority, but may not be financially independent and could be incapable of sustaining himself – Father is bound to compensate wife who, after spending on children, may hardly be left with anything to maintain herself – Application dismissed. (Paras 9, 10, 21 and 22)
Result: Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Crl.M.A.11083/2021
Subramonium Prasad, J.—This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for seeking the review of the Order of this Hon’ble Court dated 14.06.2021 in Criminal Revision Petition 549/2021 wherein this Court had granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the revisionist/Petitioner No.1 till the Petitioner No. 2 completes his graduation or starts earning, whichever is earlier.
2. Mr. Digvijay Rai, Counsel for the Respondent, has put forth four grounds for recalling the Order dated 14.06.2021 rendered by this Hon’ble Court:
i. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the impugned Judgement fails to deal with Amarendra Kumar Paul v. Maya Paul & Ors., (2009) 8 SCC 359, wherein the Supreme Court had held that according to Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., an application for grant of maintenance is maintainable so far as the concerned children have not attained majority. It is stated that Petitioner No. 2 had attained majority on 14.08.2018, and completion of graduation would entail maintenance being given till 14.08.2021.
ii. It has been submitted by Mr. Rai that this Hon’ble Court has proceeded on the ground that the Petitioner No. 1 is an Upper Division Clerk in MCD earning Rs. 60,000/- per month, whereas in actuality she is an Assistant Section Officer (Gazetted) and her Gross Salary for the month of January 2020 was Rs.71,328/-. It has been stated that these figures are a matter of record, and that apart from this figure, Petitioner No.1 has also been obtaining education expenses from her employer. It has been submitted as per RTI obtained by the Respondent, Rs. 8,000/- was received by Petitioner No.1 from September 2008 to December 2008, Rs. 6,000/- from January 2009 to March 2009, Rs. 12,000/- from April 2009 to September 2009, Rs. 6,000/- from October 2009 to December 2009, and Rs. 6,000/- from January 2010 to March 2010. It has been stated that educational expenses of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have been paid till date.
iii. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has stated that impugned Judgement, granting a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to Petitioner No. 1 for Petitioner No. 2 from the date of attaining majority till he completes his graduation or starts earning, whichever is earlier, is outside the scope of this Hon’ble Court as it could not have it have extended it for a period beyond the final adjudication of the case by the Trial Court.
iv. It has been submitted by Mr. Rai that this Hon’ble Court has erred in proceeding with the matter on the basis that Petitioner No. 1 has been denied maintenance whereas the case was that Petitioner No. 1 had only been denied maintenance at interim stage.
3. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondent and perused the material on record.
4. At the outset, this Court finds it pertinent to state that the embargo contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C., which prohibits the Court from altering or reviewing its judgement or final order disposing of the case, is inapplicable to an Order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Saving Clause contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. entails that the rigour of the provision is relaxed in two conditions, i.e. save as otherwise provided by (i) the Code of Criminal Procedure or (ii) any other law for the time being in force.
5. In Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor and Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 172, the Supreme Court had observed that the legislature was aware that there were situations where altering or reviewing of criminal court judgement were contemplated in the Code itself or any other law for the time being in force. Noting that Section 125 Cr.P.C. was a social justice legislation, the Supreme Court held that a closer look at Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself indicated that the Court after passing judgment or final order in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. did not become functus officio, and that the Section itself co
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
