The statutory right of a wife to be maintained by her husband/ex-husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be nullified by any agreement between them.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. Des Raj, ex-husband of respondent Sita Devi, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 8.10.2005 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur as well as the order dated 8.5.2006 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur, whereby an amount of maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month has been awarded to the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in this case the parties got married in the year 1955. A son was born to them on 15.8.1958. In the year 1970, a petition for dissolution of the marriage was allegedly filed by respondent Sita Devi against the petitioner on the ground that her husband converted himself to Christianity, therefore, the marriage be dissolved. In the said petition, the petitioner filed the admitted written statement and a decree for divorce was passed. In those proceedings, an application for permanent alimony and maintenance was filed. During the pendency of the said application, a compromise was alleged to have been arrived at between the parties out of the court, according to which, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in lump sum as maintenance and also provided a house for her residence. It is also alleged that another amount of Rs. 5000/- was also given to the wife at that time. In view of the said agreement, the application for alimony and maintenance was not pressed.

3. In the year 2001, when the respondent-wife was 62 years old and not able to maintain herself and when her husband as well as her son neglected her to maintain, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner on 19.10.2001. In the application, it was alleged that initially there were cordial relations between the parties. After some time, the petitioner started residing with one lady claiming her to be his second wife. Thereafter, the petitioner maltreated the respondent-wife and turned her out of the matrimonial home along with her minor child. It was alleged that the respondent is an illiterate lady and during her stay with her husband, he obtained her signatures on blank papers and those were misused by him in obtaining the alleged consent decree of divorce. It has been stated that thereafter the petitioner started providing food to the respondent-wife in a separate house till her son became major. Thereafter, the petitioner paid some amount and meals for sometime but later on he refused to maintain the respondent. It was alleged that from the last about five years, the petitioner had completely stopped maintaining the respondent-wife. She is not in a position to maintain herself being an old lady and having no source of income. It was alleged that the petitioner is running the business under the name and style of Janta Medical Hall, Main Bazar, Bhawanigarh and a shop of Commission Agent and having sufficient movable and immovable property worth lacs of rupees. It was alleged that the petitioner was having an income of Rs.one lac per month. On these facts, she claimed that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month be awarded to her against her husband for maintenance.

4. The aforesaid application was contested by the petitioner on several grounds, i.e., that in view of the dissolution of the marriage between the parties and the permanent alimony paid to the respondent-wife, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable; that wife could have claimed maintenance from her major son; that the husband being an old person, is not capable to maintain the respondent-wife as he is having no source of income.

5. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur after taking into consideration the evidence/material placed on record by both the parties, had come to the conclusion that being an ex-husband, the petitioner is liable to maintain the respondent-wife and by making a payment of Rs. 15000/- in the year 1971, he could not absolve himse