The court established the parameters for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and affirmed the entitlement of a legally wedded wife to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Jarat Kumar Jain, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the order dated 30.05.2012 passed by 2nd ASJ, Shajapur in Criminal Revision No. 257/11 by which affirmed the order dated 14.10.2011 passed by ACJM, Shajapur in MJC No. 59/09.

2. Brief facts of this case are that the respondent wife has filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the Petitioner-husband claiming the maintenance on the ground that their marriage was solemnized way back in the year 1951 as per the Hindu rites. She lived with the Petitioner for about five years. During that period she was subjected to cruelty and the Petitioner-husband used to beat her and he expressed that he did not like her. Ultimately the respondent wife was turned out from her matrimonial home and she started living with her father. Thereafter for almost forty years she lived separately. Now she became old and unable to maintain herself whereas the Petitioner has agriculture income of Rs. 5.00 lakh per year. The Petitioner has contracted the second marriage and in such circumstances, the Petitioner-husband be directed to pay her the maintenance @ Rs. 3000/- per month.

3. The Petitioner husband resisted the application mainly on the ground that their marriage was void as at the time of their marriage they were minor. They never lived as husband and wife. The Petitioner husband is now aged about 72 years and he has no income. He himself is dependent upon his sons whereas the respondent wife has inherited the agricultural land from her father but she intentionally relinquished her rights in favour of her brother's son with a view to claim maintenance. In such circumstances, the respondent is not entitled for any maintenance from the Petitioner-husband.

4. Learned ACJM after due inquiry allowed the application and directed the Petitioner-husband to pay maintenance @ Rs. 3000/- per month. Against this order the Petitioner has filed the revision. By the impugned order learned 2nd ASJ Shajapur dismissed the revision on 30.05.2012 and affirmed the order of ACJM. Being aggrieved with this order the Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-husband submits that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse. He further submitted that it is apparent from the record that their marriage was solemnized when they were minor, therefore their marriage is void. The respondent has failed to prove that she lived with Petitioner as husband and wife for 5 years and the Petitioner-husband turned out the respondent and he neglected to maintain the respondent. The courts below have not considered this fact. The Petitioner has filed this application after a lapse of more than 40 years and she is unable to give explanation for such a long delay. Learned Courts below have not taken into consideration this fact that the Petitioner is a old person of 75 years and he himself is dependent upon his sons therefore he is unable to pay maintenance awarded by the Courts below.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the respondent wife did not returned to the matrimonial home for a long period and in such circumstances the Petitioner husband performed second marriage. Thus the respondent wife having deserted the Petitioner-husband is not entitled to claim maintenance particularly when the husband has reached 75 years of age and is having no means of income. For this purpose he relied upon the judgment of this Court Urmila Tiwari Vs. Chandrika Prasad Tiwari reported in 2009 (2) MPWN-67.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petition for maintenance filed by the wife after about 45 years and she has failed to explain the inordinate delay and therefore she is not entitled for maintenance. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal : AIR 2011 SC 479. T