The central legal point established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the social purpose of the section, and the duty to maintain family members.

Kalimullah Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist Smt. Suman Devi and learned counsel for the opposite party no.-2 Rakesh Kumar as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been directed against the impugned orders dated 1.6.2007 and 18.8.2007 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Meerut in case no. 496 of 2005 (Smt. Suman Devi vs. Rakesh Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Meerut challenging their correctness, legality and propriety.

3. Counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged.

4. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that case no. 496 of 2005 was pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut. The aforesaid case was filed by Smt Suman Devi against her husband Rakesh Kumar for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

5. During the proceeding of the case on dated 1.6.2007, she did not appear before the court as a result of which her case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed in default vide order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the aforesaid Principal Judge Family Court, Meerut which reads as under: -

"1.6.07

Case called out. The o.p. is present. The applicant is not turned up inspite of repeated calls. Besides this it is also reported that they are living together. In these circumstances the application is rejected and case is dismissed in default of the applicant.

Sd/-

1.6.07"

6. The perusal of the certified copy of the ordersheet dated 1.6.2007, reveals that learned trial court has again passed another order which reads as under: -

Þckngw ikfjr gksus vkns'k izkFkZuki= 24&c izkfFkZuh dh vksj ls vkt dh gkftjh ekQh is'k gksdj vkns'k gqvk fd& It is of no use. Rejected accordingly.

Sd/-

1/6

iz/kku U;k;k/kh'k
ifjokj U;k;ky;] esjBß

7. Thereafter, Smt Suman Devi revisionist made an application to set aside the order dated 1.6.2007 on the ground that on the aforesaid date i.e. 1.6.2007 she had gone to Goddess Shakumbhari Devi, Saharanpur and could not appear before the court. The application was supported with an affidavit.

8. Opposite party no.-2, Rakesh Kumar her husband filed objection 8-B wherein he pleaded that she had not gone to Goddess Shakumbhari Devi, Saharanpur on 1.6.2007 rather she was living at his house no. 4/9, Tehsil Compound, Meerut City. On account of her absence in the court, her case was rightly dismissed in default. Apart from it, he apprised the Court through his objection that a compromise had already been entered into in between him and his wife in case no. 1949 of 2007 Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also in case no. 496 of 2005 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (supra).

9. Learned trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed in default the application, vide order dated 18.8.2007, made by the revisionist Smt. Suman Devi on following two grounds: -

1- That none has appeared for her in the court on 1.6.2007; and

2- That she was living with her husband Rakesh Kumar opposite party no.-2.

10. The correctness, legality and propriety of the aforesaid orders dated 01.6.2007 and 18.8.2007 have been challenged in this criminal revision.

11. The object and the scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is that the proceedings under this section are not punitive. The object is not to punish a person for neglect to maintain those whom he is bound to maintain. The section provides only a speedy remedy by a summary procedure to enforce liability in order to avoid vagrancy. The provisions of Chapter IX Cr.P.C. should be liberally construed as the primary object is to give social justice to women and children and to prevent distribution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves. These provisions provide a speedy remedy to those who are in distress. They are intended to achieve this social purpose. This section gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable t