Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 3403
FAKHRUN NISHA – Appellant
Versus
MD. ANWAR @ BHUTKA – Respondent
Crl.A. No.-000266-000266 / 2024
16-01-2024
RANDHIR KUMAR OJHA
Both a wife and her minor daughter are entitled to maintenance, and the matter must be reconsidered by the High Court on its merits.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance - The High Court dismissed the revision against the denial of maintenance, ignoring the minor daughter's claim - The Supreme Court quashed the order and remitted the matter for merits consideration. (Paras 3, 5)
(B) Maintenance - The court emphasized the necessity of considering maintenance for both the wife and minor daughter, highlighting the importance of ensuring adequate support for dependents. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a High Court order dismissing a revision against the denial of maintenance to the appellant-wife and her minor daughter. The delay in filing the revision was condoned.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court's dismissal was improper as it failed to consider the minor daughter's maintenance claim.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the revision without considering the minor daughter's right to maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that both the wife and minor daughter are entitled to maintenance, and the matter should be reconsidered by the High Court on its merits.
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
1. Leave granted. 2. In spite of being duly served, none appears for the respondent. 3. The present matter arises out of the order passed by the High Court in revision, thereby dismissing the revision filed against the order of denial of maintenance. 4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that apart from the maintenance payable to the appellant No.1-wife, the question of maintenance to the minor daughter-Appellant No.2 was ignored. The delay in filing the revision is condoned. 5. The impugned order is quashed and set aside, remitting the matter back to the High Court for deciding the same on merits, in accordance with law. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.01.18 11:35:36 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ..............................J ( B.R. GAVAI ) ..............................J ( SANDEEP MEHTA ) NEW DELHI; ..............................J ( B.R. GAVAI ) ..............................J ( SANDEEP MEHTA ) NEW DELHI; JANUARY 16, 2024 ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 14538/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-08-2023 in CRR No. 343/2022 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi) FAKHRUN NISHA & ANR. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS MD. ANWAR @ BHUTKA RESPONDENT(S) (IA No.232090/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 16-01-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. Leave granted. 2. The appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed order. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (BEENA JOLLY) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
