Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 1136
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
N.K. Gupta, J.
Changu Baiga - Appellant
Versus
Gupta Bai Baiga - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.504-2006
Decided On : 25-07-2014
For the Petitioner:Ad.Mishra, Manoj Singh, P.Tiwari, Rs.Maindiratta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Manoj Dwivedi, Rajneesh Tripathi(1), Advocate.
The grounds for challenging a maintenance order under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. must fall within the purview of the section and cannot be raised if objections were foregone and the order was not challenged before the Superior Court on certain grounds.
Headnote:
Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. - Maintenance Order - The court dismissed the applicant's challenge to the maintenance order, ruling that the grounds raised in the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. were not within the purview of the section. The court emphasized that if the applicant had foregone objections and did not challenge the maintenance order before the Superior Court on the ground of misrepresentation or threat, such grounds could not be raised through Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a maintenance application, which was granted based on compromise. The applicant later moved an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the maintenance order, which was dismissed by the trial court as time-barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grounds raised in the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. were not within the purview of the section and upheld the trial court's dismissal of the applicant's challenge.
Issues: Challenge to maintenance order under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that if the applicant had foregone objections and did not challenge the maintenance order before the Superior Court on the ground of misrepresentation or threat, such grounds could not be raised through Section 127 of the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The present revision filed by the applicant was dismissed.
1.Heard on admission.
2. The applicant has challenged the order dated 4.3.2006 passed by the JMFC, Umariya in MJC No. 243 of 2005 in which the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant was dismissed.
3. The facts of the case in short are that the respondent had filed a maintenance application, which was registered as MJC No. 34 of 2003. On 14.7.2004, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Umariya has granted the maintenance of Rs. 400/- to the respondent on the basis of compromise.
4. Thereafter, on 22.9.2005 the applicant moved an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by the learned JMFC, Umariya being barred by limitation.
5. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, it would be apparent that the applicant entered into the contract of compromise and therefore, the maintenance order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Umaraiya. If the compromise took place due to any threat or misrepresentation then, the applicant had an opportunity to knock the doors of the revisionary Court or the higher Courts. It appears that the applicant kept silent for almost 14 months and therefore, relief sought in the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. by the applicant was considered by the trial Court as time barred.
6. Actually, if an opportunity was given to the applicant to raise such objection before the Court who passed an order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and he had foregone his objections and thereafter, he did not challenge the maintenance order before the Superior Court on the ground of misrepresentation or threat then, such grounds or merits could not be raised by way of an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. An application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. can be moved by certain reasons which may an amount of change in the circumstances, if the respondent would have entered into the second marriage then, the maintenance granted to her could be withdrawn.
7. Under such circumstances, the grounds raised in the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. were not in the purview of Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. The learned JMFC has rightly dismissed the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. There is no reason so that any interference can be done in the impugned order.
8. Consequently the present revision filed by the applicant namely Changu Baiga hereby dismissed.
