1981 Supreme(MP) 434

Chandra Pal Singh, J.
Gopal v. Krisbnabai.
Cr. Revn. No. 93 of 1981 (I); Decided on 11-8-1981.

Headnote:(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 125(1) (c) -- petition for maintenance -- strict rules of pleading do not apply -- assertion that she is not doing anything sufficient to attract the provision.

        (2) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 125 -- proceedings under -- nature of -- they are of summary nature and can be described to be quasi criminal or quasi civil.

        (3) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 125 -- quantum of maintenance -- wife cannot be allowed to have the entire income of the husband.

        The main ground leading this Court to admit this petition is that whether in the absence of specific pleading that she is unable to maintain herself she could be granted maintenance under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code.

        Held: Strict rules of pleading do not apply to proceedings under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. They are of summary nature. They could utmost be described as quasi Civil of quasi criminal the latter because they appear in the Criminal Procedure Code and former in the sense that the party claiming maintenance is not a complainant or a prosecutor and the party proceeded against is not an accused.

        The wife in para 2 of her application has stated that at present the has not been doing anything to maintain herself. Such sort of pleading had been construed to have satisfied the requirement of section 125 (1) (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. See Smt. Malan v. Baburao Yeshwant Jadhav (1980 Criminal Law Journal 184). Thus the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the application preferred by the wife under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code does specify the wifes inability to maintain herself.

        The second ground is about the amount of maintenance to be awarded. The applicant in paragraph 6 of her application has merely specified that her husband is in a position to provide her with maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150 P. M. She has not specified how much does he earns. The reply of the husband regarding the contents of paragraph 6 of his wifes application was that he earns at the rate of Rs. 150 P.M. and hence she was not entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/-. The evidence of the wife regarding the amount her husband earns is vague.

        On the basis of this evidence it would be a hardship indeed to let the wife have the entire earnings of the husband. At the same time it has also to be borne in mind that the wife bas to maintain herself. I find that the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 751- per month would serve the ends of justice. 1981 Cr. L. J. 184 relied on. Revision partly allowed.