SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Raj) 740

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : M.A.A. Khan
Radhey Shyam - Appellant
Versus
Meera Devi - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 100 and 129 of 1992
Decided On : 12/11/1996

Advocates Appeared:
N.K. Joshi, Sanjay Joshi and Anita Bhargav, for the Appellant
Akhil Modi, for the Respondents

The Karta of a Hindu joint family is under a legal obligation to maintain certain persons, including disqualified members and their families, out of the joint family property. However, the summary proceedings contemplated in Section 125, CrPC cannot be invoked against the Karta or Manager of the joint family property.

Headnote:

MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125, CRPC - HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY - LIABILITY OF KARTA TO MAINTAIN MENTALLY RETARDED COPARCENER AND HIS WIFE AND MINOR CHILD - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 125, CRPC - INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS.

Fact of the Case:

Smt. Meera Devi and her minor son Satyanarain filed an application Under Section 125, CrPC for grant of maintenance from Ram Avtar, her mentally retarded husband, and his elder brother Radhey Shyam, the Karta of the Hindu joint family. The Trial Court dismissed the petition, finding that Ram Avtar was mentally disabled and had no means to maintain himself or his family, and that Smt. Meera Devi had left him voluntarily. The Sessions Court reversed this order, holding that Radhey Shyam, as the Karta, was liable to maintain the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the impugned order against Radhey Shyam was invalid as he was not a party to the proceedings and was not given an opportunity to be heard. The Court further held that the liability of a Hindu to maintain others arises from the relationship between the parties and/or possession of ancestral property. The Karta of a joint Mitakshra family is under a legal obligation to maintain certain persons, including disqualified members and their families, out of the joint family property. However, the summary proceedings contemplated in Section 125, CrPC cannot be invoked against the Karta or Manager of the joint family property. They may seek their remedy before a Civil Court according to the personal law governing their rights for maintenance out of joint family property.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order against Radhey Shyam, the Karta of the Hindu joint family, was valid, considering that he was not a party to the proceedings and was not given an opportunity to be heard? 2. Whether the Karta of a Hindu joint family is liable to maintain a mentally retarded coparcener and his wife and minor child under Section 125, CrPC?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned order against Radhey Shyam was invalid as he was not a party to the proceedings and was not given an opportunity to be heard. This is a violation of the principles of natural justice and the right to be heard, which are fundamental to the dispensation of justice. 2. The Court held that the liability of a Hindu to maintain others arises from the relationship between the parties and/or possession of ancestral property. The Karta of a joint Mitakshra family is under a legal obligation to maintain certain persons, including disqualified members and their families, out of the joint family property. However, the summary proceedings contemplated in Section 125, CrPC cannot be invoked against the Karta or Manager of the joint family property. They may seek their remedy before a Civil Court according to the personal law governing their rights for maintenance out of joint family property.

Final Decision: The High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed both the petitions. The Court held that Ram Avtar, being mentally disabled and having no means to maintain himself or his family, could not be asked to maintain the respondents under Section 125, CrPC. The respondents were advised to seek their remedy under other laws.

Judgment

M.A.A. Khan, J.-Since, both these Revision Petitions Under Section 397, CrPC arise out of the same order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated April 9, 1992 passed Under Section 397, CrPC whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge reversed the order passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar, in Criminal Case No. 65/1990 dismissing respondents application Under Section 125, CrPC for grant of maintenance to them, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The main order shall be placed on the file of S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 100/92 Radhey Shyam vs. Smt. Meera Devi & Anr., and a copy thereof shall be placed on the file of the other petition.

2. Respondent Smt. Meera Devi and her minor son Satyanarain had filed an application Under Section 125, CrPC in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar on 12.1990 alleging herein that Smt. Meera Devi was married to Shri Ram Avtar petitioner on 10.9.1978 according to the tenets of Hindu religion, that the wedlock produced a male issue, Satyanarain Respondent No. 2 for them but after the birth of Satyanarain the relations between the husband and wife deteriorated and became strained and in September, 1985 Smt. Meera Devi was turned out of her matrimonial house and since then she had been living, alongwith her minor son, with her father. It was further alleged that Ram Avtar respondent, despite having sufficient means to maintain his wife and minor son, neglected to maintain them. The respondents, therefore, prayed that Smt. Meera Devi be granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/-PM and Satyanarain, minor son, be granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/-PM from the date of the application.

.3. The application was opposed on behalf of the petitioner Ram Avtar on the ground that he, being a mentally retarded person, was dependent upon his elder brother Radhey Shyam, and was thus unable and also having no means to maintain himself , his wife and minor child. It was further averred that Smt. Meera Devi, alongwith her minor child had left the company of Ram Avtar on her own long back and had been living with her parents. In a sense, it was averred that she had deserted Ram Avtar petitioner for not good reasons and was,

.therefore, not entitled to any maintenance Under Section 125, CrPC.

4. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence of the parties produced before him held that Mr. Ram Avtar, petitioner was a mentally disabled person, that he was having no sufficient means even to maintain himself , that he was dependent for his maintenance upon his elder brother, Mr. Radhey Shyam, that Smt. Meera Devi had left the company of Ram Avtar on her own and did not want to live with him. The learned Trial Court, therefore, held that Ram Avtar respondent was neither having sufficient means to maintain the respondents nor did he neglect to maintain them. Holding thus the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition of the respondents.

5. In revision, however, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge though accepted the finding of the learned Trial Court that Ram Avtar petitioner being a mentally retarded person was unable even to maintain himself yet he fastened the liability of maintaining the respondents upon Ram Avtar’s elder brother, Mr. Radhey Shyam (Petitioner in S.B. Cr. Revs. Pet. No. 100/92), who, according to the learned Sessions Judge, was the Karta of the Hindu joint family of which Ram Avtar was a member, and as such was bound to maintain the female and the minor child of coparcener of the Hindu joint family. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, directed that Mr. Radhey Shyam petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 250/-PM to Smt. Meera Devi and Rs. 200/-PM to Mr. Satyanarain, minor child through her guardian Smt. Meera Devi towards their maintenance allowance from the date of application i.e. 12.1990. The order so made by the learned Sessions Judge in the petition p




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top