The statutory right of a wife to maintenance under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be overridden by any agreement between the parties and is not affected by personal laws or agreements opposed to public policy.

I.S.TIWANA, J.

1. The matter is before us on a reference to answer the following question :-

"Whether a wife who has voluntarily surrendered her right to maintenance in divorce proceedings would not be entitled to claim subsequently maintenance allowance under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

It arises from the following facts :-

2 As a result of the proceedings initiated by Ranjit Kaur petitioner under Ss. 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide his order dated 1/06/1987, granted a decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent of the parties. During those proceedings, she made his statement :-

"I have heard the above statement of respondent and is correct. I cannot live in the house of respondent as wife. Our child resides with respondent for which I have no objection and there is his benefit in living with the respondent. I relinquish my rights to my maintenance and to take child. I can avail the legal remedies for taking my articles back."

Thereafter she filed the present application under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 13-8-1987 claiming maintenance from the respondent at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month. She highlighted therein that whereas the respondent is a man of means, she is unable to maintain herself and is living as a parasite on her widowed mother. The respondent besides contesting the claim of the petitioner on merits has also taken the plea that she has not locus standi to file the present application as she had voluntarily relinquished her right to maintenance during the above noted proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. The trial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, have upheld the latter mentioned objection of the respondent primarily in the light of S. 127 (3)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner impugnes these orders by way of this petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. What persuaded the learned single Judge to refer the above noted question to a larger Bench is his reluctance to accept the view expressed in an earlier single Bench judgment of this Court in Darshan Singh V/s. Maninder Kaur (1987) 2 Hindu LR 386; its controversial nature and the likelihood of it being raised in large number of cases in times to come.

4. An adequate appreciation of the question posed is possible only in knowing the scope and intendment of S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and more particularly sub-section (1) thereof with which we are primarily concerned in the instant case. It obliges a person having sufficient means to maintain the persons specified in Cls. (a) to (d) in case neglect or refusal to such maintenance on his part is established. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal V/s. Mrs. Veena Kaushal, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1807, this provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Art. 15 (3) reinforced by Art. 39 of the Constitution. Therefore, this underlying object of the provision has to guide its interpretation. The purpose of the section is not to punish anybody for the past neglect but to prevent future vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to support those who are unable to support themselves and have a moral claim to such a support. In brief, the object is to prevent starvation and vagrancy leading to the commission of various crimes. To achieve this object, the section provides a cheap and speedy remedy. The law Commission of India in its 41st report dealing with the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code also noticed that primary object or justification for placing provisions relating to maintenance of wives and children which is primarily a civil matter, in the Code is that a remedy more speedy and economical than the one available in the Civil Courts is provided for them. The Commission also while negativing the suggestion that an ord