2001 (2) C.G.L.J. 283
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
R.S. Garg, J.
Ghurava Bai
Vs.
Vishnuram
Misc.Cr. Case No. 705 of 1996
Decided on : 20/9/2001
MAINTENANCE - Section 125, Cr. P.C. - No limitation for making an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. - The Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not provide any limitation for making an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant-wife filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. seeking maintenance from her husband, who had allegedly ill-treated her and developed an illicit relationship with another woman. The lower courts rejected her application, leading her to approach the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court analyzed the evidence presented by both parties and found that the husband's defenses were untenable. The Court also discussed the provisions of Section 125, Cr. P.C. and relevant case law to determine the wife's entitlement to maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the delay in filing the maintenance application should not be a ground for rejecting the wife's claim, and that the husband must pay the maintenance from the date of the application. The Court also emphasized the need to provide proper maintenance to the wife to ensure she can live respectfully and peacefully.
Result: The High Court allowed the wife's petition and granted her a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 500 from the date of the application.
R.S. Garg, J.
1. The applicant-wife being unsuccessful before the two Courts has come to this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. making a complaint that the two Courts did not appreciate the law properly, erred in not appreciating that the delay in making the application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. would not defeat the justice for would frustrate the right which the law confers on destitute wife.
2. The applicant-wife made an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class under Section 125, Cr. P.C. inter alia pleading that the applicant was legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, out of the wed-lock the parties were blessed with a child who was about 20 years of age on the date of maintenance application, the husband was ill-treating the wife and had also developed illicit relationship with one Sukwaro Bai. The applicant when raised objection, she was beaten and was turned out of the house. She also pleaded that she was unable to maintain herself; she had become very weak; her legs had oedema and she was under the treatment of the doctor. She also pleaded that the non-applicant/husband was well-to-do man; his yearly income from agriculture was Rs. 40,000/-; being engaged in the milk business his net earning from the said business was Rs. 5,000/- per month and as he is giving his bullock cart on hire he is earning Rs. 100/- per day, she claimed Rs. 500/- towards maintenance in view of the un-amended law. The application was filed on 23.6.1993.
3. The husband in his reply dated 1.10.1993 stated that he was married to one Sukwaro Bai. Said Sukwaro Bai could not conceive pregnancy, therefore, he contracted the second marriage with the applicant. He, therefore, pleaded that during the life-time of the first wife, he contracted second marriage. Denying the material allegations he submitted that he never ill-treated the wife and he never turned out the wife from his house. Challenging the statement of inability of the wife to maintain herself, he submitted that the wife was a trained labour in Bidi manufacturing and she could easily earn Rs. 150/- per month. He also submitted that the applicant was possessed of her father's one acre land and was earning about Rs. 15,000/- per year. Denying his assets and the income he submitted that he possessed only two acres of land from which his net yearly earning was Rs. 1,000/-. He denied' the milk business and further submitted that he could give his bullock cart on hire hardly for three days in a month and could earn only Rs. 100/ - from the said vocation. In para 7, he however, submitted that he was ready and willing to maintain the applicant, but the applicant of her own was not ready to come.
4. The applicant-wife examined her own-self and also examined P.W. 2 Puranik Ram and P.W. 3 Prabhuram. The non-applicant examined his own-self and also examined D.W. 2 Jivrakhan Lal and D.W. 3 Devlal Sahu. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court rejected the application despite holding that the applicant was the first legally wedded wife. The Trial Court however held that if she was able to maintain herself for 21 years or more then, she would not be entitled to any maintenance. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhamtari, in M.Cr.C. No. 81/1993, on 23.8.1994 was challenged by the applicant - wife before the Revisional Court. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (Raipur) by his judgment dated 11.12.1995 passed in Cr. Revision No. 5/95 confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court and maintained the dismissal of the application, therefore, the applicant-wife has come to this Court.
5. Mrs. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the two Courts below were absolutely unjustified in rejecting the applicant's application simply on the ground that if she could maintain herself for 21 years then, she was not entitled to any maintenance. According to her if a woman in her youth or young age being in a position to maintain herself does
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.