Back
2008(2) JLJ 70
(SUPREME COURT)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Aftab Alam, JJ.
Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai
Criminal Appeal No. 1627 of 2007 : against the order of M.P. High Court, Bench at Indore, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1385 of 2006;
Decided on 27.11.2007.
In the application it was claimed that she was unemployed and unable to maintain herself. Appellant had retired from the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture and was getting about Rs.8,000/- as pension and a similar amount as house rent. Besides this, he was lending money to people on interest. The applicant claimed Rs.10,000/- as maintenance. The stand of the appellant was that the applicant was living in the house constructed by the present appellant... and electricity and water dues were being paid by him. The applicant can maintain herself from the money received from the sale of agricultural land and rent. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found that the applicant respondent did not have sufficient means to maintain herself. [Para 2
Held: Where the personal income of the wife is in sufficient she can claim maintenance under section 125 CrPC. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi [AIR 1975 SC 83], it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression unable to maintain herself does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under section 125 CrPC. AIR 1975 SC 83 relied on. [Para 8
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.125 -- object n is not to punish a person but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves. [Para 5
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.125 -- Constitution of India -- Arts.15(3) an 39 -- provision under S.125 of the Code -- is a measure of social justice -- falls under the constitutional sweep of Art.15(3) -- object, is to prevent vagrancy and destitution -- provides speedy remedy -- gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties. AIR 1978 SC 1807 and 2005(2) Supreme 503 relied on. [Para 5
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 125& &Hkj.kiks"k.k& &nkok fd;k tk ldrk gS Hkys gh iRuh dqN vftZr dj jgh gks& &dlkSVh ;g gS fd D;k og ml çdkj viuk Hkj.kiks"k.k dj ldrh gS tSls vius ifr ds ?kj esa djrh FkhA vkosnd esa ;g nkok fd;k x;k Fkk fd og csjkstxkj gS vkSj viuk Hkj.kiks"k.k djus esa vleFkZ gSA vihykFkhZ lgk;d lapkyd Ñf‘k ds in ls lsokfuo`Ùk gqvk gS vkSj mls yxHkx # 8]000@& isa‘ku fey jgh gS rFkk mruh gh jde edku HkkM+s dh Hkkafr çkIr gks jgh gSA blds vfrfjDr og yksxksa dks C;kt ij /ku m/kkj ns jgk FkkA vkosnd us # 10]000@& dk Hkj.kiks"k.k dh Hkk¡fr nkok fd;k gSA vihykFkhZ dk rdkZ/kkj ;g gS fd vkosnd] çLrqr vihykFkhZ }kjk lfUufeZr edku esa jg jgh gS----------d`rFkk fctyh vkSj ikuh ds ns;dksa dk Hkqxrku vihykFkhZ }kjk lanÙk fd;k tk jgk gSA vkosnd Ñf‘kd Hkwfe ds foØ; vkSj HkkM+s ls çkIr /ku }kjk viuk Hkj.kiks"k.k dj ldrh gSA vfHkys[kxr lk{; ij fopkj djus ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd vkosnd&çR;FkhZ ds ikl Lo;a ds Hkj.kiks"k.k ds fy, i;kZIr lk/ku ugha gSA ¼iSjk 2½ vfHkfu/kkZfjr% tc iRuh dh O;fDrxr vk; vi;kZIr gks] og naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 125 ds v/khu Hkj.kiks"k.k dk nkok dj ldrh gSA dlkSVh ;g gS fd D;k ml <ax ls viuk Hkj.kiks"k.k djus dh vofLFkfr esa gS ftl Hkk¡fr og vius ifr ds ?kj esa djrh FkhA Hkxoku fo- deyknsohA , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 83] ;g leqfpr dh xbZ gS fd iRuh ,slk thou Lrj thus dh vofLFkfr esa gksuk pkfg, tks u rks foykle; gks vkSj u nfjnz] vfirq tks fdlh dqVqac dh gSfl;r ls lqlaxr gksA viuk ^^Hkj.kiks"k.k djus esa vleFkZ** dk ;g ugha gS fd tc rd iRuh furkar nhughu ugha gks tk,] naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 125 ds v/khu Hkj.kiks"k.k ds fy, vkosnu ugha dj ldrhA , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 83 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 8½ ¼2½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 125& &mn~ns‘;& &fdlh O;fDr dks nafMr djuk ugha vfirq mudk Hkj.kiks"k.k dj ldrs gSa] mudh mis{kk ls foo‘k gksdj mudh vkokjxh jksdus dk gS tks viuk Hkj.kiks"k.k djus esa vleFkZ gSaA ¼iSjk 5½ ¼3½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 125& &Hkkjr dk lafo/kku& &vuq- 15¼3½ rFkk 39& &lafgrk dh /kkjk 125 ds v/khu mica/k& &lkekftd U;k; dk mik; gS& &vuq- 15¼3½ dh lkafo/kkfud O;kfIr ds varxZr vkrk gS& &mn~ns‘;] vkokjxh vkSj nhughurk jksduk gS& &‘kh?kz mipkj miyC/k djkrk gS& &ekSfyd vf/kdkjksa vkSj uSlfxZd drZO;ksa dks çHkkoh cukrk gSA , vkb vkj 1978 ,l lh 1807 rFkk 2005¼2½ lqçhe 503 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 15½
Pasayat, J. -- 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this' appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant in terms of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short CrPC). The challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Neemuch, M.P. as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, M.P. The respondent had filed an application under section 125 of CrPC claiming maintenance from the appellant. Undisputedly, the appellant and the respondent had entered into marital knot about four decades back and for more than two decades they were living separately. In the application it was claimed that she was unemployed and unable to maintain herself. Appellant had retired from the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture and was getting about Rs.8,000/- as pension and a similar amount as house rent. Besides this, he was lending money to people on interest. The applicant claimed Rs.10,000/- as maintenance. The stand of the appellant was that the applicant was living in the house constructed by the present appellant, who had purchased 7 bighas of land in Ratlam in the name of the applicant. She let out the house on rent and since 1979 was residing with one of their sons. The applicant sold the agricultural land on 13.3.2003. The sale proceeds were still with the applicant. The appellant was getting pension of about Rs.5,700/- p.m. and was not getting any house rent regularly. He was getting 2-3 thousand rupees per month. The plea that the appellant had married another lady was denied. It was further submitted that the applicant at the relevant point of time was staying in the house of the appellant and electricity and water dues were being paid by him. The applicant can maintain herself from the money received from the sale of agricultural land and rent. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found that the applicant-respondent did not have sufficient means to maintain herself.
3. Revision petition was filed by the present appellant. Challenge was to the direction to pay Rs.l,500/- p.m. by the trial Court. The stand was that the applicant was able to maintain herself from her income was reiterated. The revisional Court analysed the evidence and held that the appellant's monthly income was more than Rs.10,000/- and the amount received as rent by the respondent-claimant was not sufficient to maintain herself. The revision was accordingly dismissed. The matter was further carried before the High Court by filing an application in terms of section 482 CrPC. The High Court noticed that the conclusions have been arrived at on appreciation of evidence and, therefore, there is no scope for any interference.
4. Section 125 CrPC reads as follows:
"125. (I) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain -
(a) his wife, 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, a Magistrate of the First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct :
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
