Back
2016 Supreme(Pat) 1112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Archana Kumari, wife of Shailesh Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
Shailelsh Sharma, son of Late Sheodutt Sharma - Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 892 of 2015
Decided On : 26-07-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anuj Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh
The duty of a man to maintain his dependents as per Section 125 of the CrPC and the need for speedy remedy to avoid vagrancy.
Headnote:
Maintenance Case - Delay in Disposal - Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - [Section 125 of the CrPC] - The court directed the Family Court to dispose of Maintenance Case No. 127(M) of 2007 within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, emphasizing the duty of a man to maintain his wife, children, and parents as per Section 125 of the CrPC and the need for speedy remedy to avoid vagrancy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ for expeditious disposal of Maintenance Case No. 127(M) of 2007, which had been pending for over eight years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was unjustifiable delay in the disposal of the maintenance case and emphasized the duty of a man to maintain his wife, children, and parents as per Section 125 of the CrPC.
Issues: Delay in disposal of Maintenance Case No. 127(M) of 2007, obstruction in proceedings, and duty of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The duty of a man to maintain his dependents as per Section 125 of the CrPC and the need for speedy remedy to avoid vagrancy influenced the court's decision to direct the expeditious disposal of the maintenance case.
Final Decision: The court directed the Family Court to dispose of Maintenance Case No. 127(M) of 2007 within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.
In the present application filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the writ petitioner in para 1 is as under:-
“1. That the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for the following reliefs:-
(A) A writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or orders direction commanding the Principal Judge, Family Court, in of Maintenance Case No. 127(M) of 2007 to conclude the maintenance Case No. 127(M) of 2007 forthwith, which has not been concluded in terms of the own order of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna.
(B) To any other reliefs to which the petitioner has been found entitled to.”
2. It is submitted by Mr. Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was deserted and thrown out of her matrimonial house by the opposite party. This resulted into filing of Maintenance Case No. 127(M) of 2007 was under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “CrPC”) in the year 2007 by the petitioner. After hearing the parties and after considering monthly income of the opposite party, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, vide order dated 15.03.2010, passed an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 8000/- per month from the date of the order as interim maintenance for her and her 9 years old minor daughter, who is studying at Open Mind Birla School, Patna. The aforesaid maintenance case was fixed for arguments on 15.05.2013. However, the argument could not take place prior to 27.08.2014. On 27.08.2014, the petitioners argument started and it concluded on 3rd September, 2014. Since 3rd September, 2014, argument of the opposite party started and it has not concluded as yet. The petitioner filed an application for early disposal of case on 20th January, 2015. A reply to the said application was filed by the opposite party on 10th February, 2015 taking the plea that the petitioner was not allowing another case, i.e. Matrimonial Case No.302 of 2009 to conclude, which has been filed by the opposite party for divorce.
3. It is further submitted that on 22nd April, 2015, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna fixed 28.04.2015 and the matter was thereafter adjourned on several occasions for argument on behalf of the opposite party and it has not concluded till date.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner is left with no option but to move an application for a direction to the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna for expeditious disposal of the maintenance case.
5. Per contra, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent is paying the interim maintenance to the petitioner as per order passed by the court. It is the petitioner, who had challenged the aforesaid order of interim maintenance dated 15.03.2010 by filing Criminal Revision No. 497 of 2010, which was finally heard on 12th February, 2013, but when the revision application was going to be dismissed the counsel for the petitioner prayed to withdraw the said case with a liberty to raise the points at appropriate stage in trial and, accordingly, the said revision application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.02.2013 passed by this Court. He has submitted that the respondent husband has filed Matrimonial Case No. 302 of 2009 on 13th May, 2009 against his wife for obtaining decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is also pending before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court in which case the petitioner is deliberately delaying proceedings.
6. Mr. Singh has further submitted that the respondent is arguing the case before the Principal Judge since 08.09.2014 and it is petitioner who is creating obstruction in disposal of the case. Due to the obstruction created by the petitioner or her advocate, the argument could not be concluded till date.
7. I have heard the parties and perused the record.
8. Be it noted that in reply
