The court emphasized the necessity for timely resolution of maintenance applications under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent injustice and uphold the rights of vulnerable parties.

JUDGMENT

Vinod Diwakar, J.

In Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2023

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision is reported to be filed beyond time by 192 days.

3. Cause shown for delay is sufficient.

4. Accordingly, the delay in filing the instant revision is condoned.

5. Consequently, the instant application is allowed.

6. Office to allot its regular number.

In Re: Criminal Revision

7. The present criminal revision has been preferred seeking quashing of the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 12.3.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, in Case No.408 of 2006 titled as Smt. Soniya Saxena @ Seema and another v. Rajesh Babu Saxena, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and recovery warrant dated 18.8.2023 passed in Execution Case No.110 of 2022, P.S. Kotwali, District Meerut.

8. This criminal revision raises an interesting legal question. The family court issued the maintenance order sixteen years after the maintenance application was filed under section 125 Cr.P.C., contrary to statutory requirements which provides that an application for the monthly allowance for interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso of section 125 Cr.P.C. shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person. When courts fail to perform judicial function in alignment with the objective of the statute then the issue becomes relevant for both, the administration of justice and the constitutional obligations of the courts. It assumes special significance in the model welfare state, committed to egalitarian values dedicated to the rules of law. But this issue cannot be decided in the abstract. This can be determined only against the background of facts which are outlined hereinafter.

9. The revisionist solemnized marriage with respondent-wife on 4.12.2004 as per Hindu rites and customs, and a male child was born out of the said wedlock in the month of September 2005. Soon after the marriage, the marital dispute started, and the relationship between the parties became strained owing to various reasons besides allegations of dowry demand and cruelty by the husband and relatives of the husband.

10. The respondent-wife was eight months pregnant when she was forced to move out of her matrimonial house, and she delivered a child at her parental house. The revisionist was informed about the birth of the child, but no one came from the in-law's family to perform any social and matrimonial obligation after the child's birth. Since September 2005, respondent-wife and her son has been living a life of destitution. Revisionist refused to pay maintenance for his wife and upbringing of the child, consequent upon the respondent-wife preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing Case No.408 of 2006 for award of maintenance before the Family Judge, Meerut. It reflected from the records that the parties to the litigation tried to settle the matter amicably but could not reach to any consensus; therefore, the revisionist preferred a Criminal Misc. Application No.9700 of 2009 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this court inter alia seeking to quash and set aside the entire proceedings of Case No.408 of 2008 pending in the Court of Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Meerut, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This Court vide order dated 27.4.2009 directed the revisionist to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with the mediation centre, and out of the same Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid to respondent-wife and the balance of Rs. 3000/- shall be retained by the mediation centre. It was also directed that the mediation centre decide the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months, and stayed the proceedings against the revisionist-husband until 27.7.2009. The mediation report dated 26.7.2009 reflects that the parties were unwilling to do the media