Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Vandana Kasrekar, J.
Pradeep Jain – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Manjulata Jain Modi and another – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 704 of 2015
Decided On : 05-07-2018
Maintenance - Family Dispute - Section 125 of the Cr.P.C - [125 of the Cr.P.C] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C in the context of maintenance for destitute wives, parents, and children. It emphasized the legislative stress on 'his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, or his father or mother,' and concluded that a child of another father or mother of another person is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant challenged the order granting maintenance to the non-applicants under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The non-applicants, who had entered into a second marriage, sought maintenance due to disputes arising within six months of the marriage. The Family Court granted maintenance to non-applicant No. 1 and non-applicant No. 2, the daughter from her earlier marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that non-applicant No. 2, who is not the child of the applicant, is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It upheld the maintenance awarded to non-applicant No. 1, emphasizing the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, unless disqualified, as an absolute right.
Issues: The key issue was whether non-applicant No. 2, the daughter from the earlier marriage of non-applicant No. 1, is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legislative stress on 'his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, or his father or mother' under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, concluding that a child of another father or mother of another person is not entitled to claim maintenance. It also highlighted the husband's obligation to maintain his wife, unless disqualified, as an absolute right.
Final Decision: The court set aside the maintenance awarded to non-applicant No. 2 and upheld the maintenance awarded to non-applicant No. 1, who was entitled to receive maintenance from the date of the Family Court's order.
Vandana Kasrekar, J.
The applicant has filed the present revision challenging the order dated 01.11.2014 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Bhopal in M.Cr.C. No. 47/2014 thereby allowing the application preferred by the non-applicants under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Both, the applicant and non-applicant No. 1, had earlier got married and their marriages were not successful, therefore, they have entered into second marriage with each other. Applicant from his earlier marriage has two children i.e. a daughter and a son and non-applicant No. 1 from her earlier marriage has a daughter i.e. non-applicant No. 2. The marriage of applicant and non-applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 06.12.2008. From this second wedlock the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 have no issue. The non-applicants had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance on 17.04.2014. Non-applicant No. 1 has also filed an application for grant of pendente lite maintenance. The case of non-applicant No. 1 was within a period of six months from the date of solemnization of marriage between applicant and non-applicant No. 1, disputes arose between them. It was averred that the applicant suffered loss in his diamond business and, therefore, pressurized the non-applicant No. 1 to bring money and other valuables from her parental home. On 11.07.2013, the applicant manhandled the non-applicants, he used to give physical and mental torture to bring the more money from the parental home of non-applicant No. 1 failing which the applicant would leave them. It had become impossible for non-applicant No. 1 to leave with the applicant, therefore, they left the matrimonial house of the applicant and stay at her brother's house along with her daughter. The non-applicants, thereafter, filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 17,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 10,000/- for herself and Rs. 7,000/- for her daughter which includes her tuition fees. In the application it was stated that the non-applicant No. 1 does not have any source of income to maintain herself and daughter also. It was also stated that the applicant is earning approximately Rs.80,000/- per month from his business and other sources.
3. Upon receipt of notice, the applicant has filed his reply and has denied all the allegations and contended that he is ready and willing to keep the non-applicants with him. He further stated that the behaviour of non-applicant No. 1 towards his family members and his children born out of earlier marriage was not good. He also denied that he is earning Rs.80,000/- per month. He further stated that the applicant suffered motor accident due to which he has made him disabled and accordingly, he has also suffered huge loss in his business reducing his income to greater extent. The applicant has further contended that non-applicant No. 1 has passed her M.Com examination and is earning Rs.20,000/- per month as she is working as Accountant and is also imparting tuitions to various students.
4. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the Family Court vide order dated 01.11.2014 allowed the application filed by the non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the non-applicant No. 1 and Rs.7,000/- to the non-applicant No. 2. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has filed the present revision.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the amount awarded by the Family Court is on higher side. He submits that after suffering from motor accident, his income has considerably reduced. He further submits that non-applicant No. 1 is educated lady and having M.Com degree and her own source of income and livelihood to maintain her. He further submits that the Family Court has erred in awarding the maintenance to non-applicant No. 2 as she is not his daughter. He further relied on the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
