Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 510
2011(2) RCR(Cri) 389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nirmaljit Kaur
Sudhir Kumar Rehani -Petitioner
Versus
Indu Bala and others -Respondent(s)
CRM No. M 34555 of 2008 (O&M)
Decided on: 10.02.2011
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the respondents.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the obligation of the father to provide maintenance for children extends to their education expenses, especially when the children have no independent means of their own, and that the interpretation of 'inability to maintain' under Section 125 of the Code applies not only to a child with physical or mental abnormality but also to a son who is still a student and unable to maintain himself.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Section 125 Cr.P.C - 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. - [125 Cr.P.C] - The court discussed the interpretation of 'inability to maintain' under Section 125 of the Code and held that it applies not only to a child with physical or mental abnormality but also to a son who is still a student and unable to maintain himself. The court emphasized the obligation of the father to provide maintenance for children until they are able to maintain themselves, especially towards their education expenses. The court also considered the father's financial means and the expenses being incurred by the respondents towards their needs and education expenses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the orders for grant of maintenance to the respondent wife and children under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent wife filed for maintenance after 12 years of divorce, claiming interim maintenance for herself and the children. The trial court awarded interim maintenance, which was later increased by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner challenged the orders, arguing that no maintenance can be granted to a son who has attained the age of majority and that the respondent wife is well-qualified and earning a sum of Rs.10,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the son, who is still pursuing his education, is entitled to maintenance, especially towards his education expenses. The court considered the father's financial means and the expenses being incurred by the respondents towards their needs and education expenses. It noted that the respondent wife had been living at the mercy of her brothers for many years and brought up her children single-handedly with no contribution from the father.
Issues: The issues raised were whether maintenance can be granted to a son who has attained the age of majority and whether the respondent wife, who is well-qualified and earning a sum of Rs.10,000, is entitled to maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the obligation of the father to provide maintenance for children extends to their education expenses, especially when the children have no independent means of their own. It emphasized the interpretation of 'inability to maintain' under Section 125 of the Code, stating that it applies to a son who is still a student and unable to maintain himself.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the impugned orders dated 16.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal and order dated 25.08.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.
2. Facts, in short, are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 11.12.1986and two children were born out of the wedlock on 02.02.1988 and 30.12.1990, respectively. The matrimonial life could not survive for very long and the parties separated by way of decree of divorce dated 15.02.1993. However, respondent wife filed an application as late as on 19.12.2005 for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The same is still pending. Along with the main application, respondent wife filed an application for grant of interim maintenance claiming an interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.25,000/-per month. The trial Court vide order dated 25.08.2006 awarded an interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,500/-per month to respondent wife and Rs.2000/-to the daughter from the date of filing of the application but the claim qua the son was declined as he had attained the age of majority. However, in revision, the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal vide order dated 16.10.2008 increased the amount of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6000/-per month to the respondent wife, Rs.7000/-per month to the daughter and Rs.7000/-per month were also granted to the son qua whom the maintenance was declined by the trial Court. Aggrieved against the said order, the instant petition has been filed.
3. While challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fold arguments;-
i) That no maintenance can be granted to a son who has attained the age of majority; and
ii) That respondent No. 1 is a well qualified having done B.Ed. Course and is earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the present petition and has placed on record the salary certificate of respondent No. 1, issued by the School Management Committee (R1) showing that respondent wife is getting consolidated salary of Rs.1913 per month only, whereas, the petitioner is getting total salary of Rs.40,538/-per month from Mazagaon Dock Limited where he is employed. The salary certificate to the said effect related to the year 2008 and issued by the employer of the petitioner was placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is further stated that the said salary of the petitioner is bound to have increased now. It is also stated that no doubt one of the children is major but he is pursuing his education and has no source of income. He is totally dependent on his parents for his basic needs and education. Therefore, he has every right to claim maintenance from his father till such time he is pursuing his education and starts earning. It is also stated that till now the respondent wife and children were living on the mercy of her brothers and mother, who have their own family to take care of.
5. Heard.
Section 125 Cr.P.C reads as under:-
“125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(a) Hiswife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) His legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) His legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) His father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
6. There is no doubt that the said Section talks only of a child who is a major and is unable to maintain himself on account of his being physical or mental abnormality or injury.
7. However, this Court in the case of Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab reported as 2005 (1) RCR (Criminal) 256, while interpreting the provision of 'inability to main
