Advocates:
DEBASIS MISRASHASHI BHUSHAN KUMAR

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 1627 of 2007

PETITIONER:

Chaturbhuj

RESPONDENT:

Sita Bai

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/11/2007

BENCH:

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & AFTAB ALAM

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1627 OF 2007

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4379 of 2006)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a

learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court,

Indore Bench, dismissing the revision petition filed by the

appellant in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short ’Cr.P.C.’). The challenge before the

High Court was to the order passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Neemuch, M.P. as affirmed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, M.P. The

respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the appellant.

Undisputedly, the appellant and the respondent had entered

into marital knot about four decades back and for more than

two decades they were living separately. In the application it

was claimed that she was unemployed and unable to maintain

herself. Appellant had retired from the post of Assistant

Director of Agriculture and was getting about Rs.8,000/- as

pension and a similar amount as house rent. Besides this, he

was lending money to people on interest. The appellant

claimed Rs.10,000/- as maintenance. The stand of the

appellant was that the applicant was living in the house

constructed by the present appellant who had purchased 7

bighas of land in Ratlam in the name of the applicant. She let

out the house on rent and since 1979 was residing with one of

their sons. The applicant sold the agricultural land on

13.3.2003. The sale proceeds were still with the applicant.

The appellant was getting pension of about Rs.5,700/- p.m.

and was not getting any house rent regularly. He was getting

2-3 thousand rupees per month. The plea that the appellant

had married another lady was denied. It was further

submitted that the applicant at the relevant point of time was

staying in the house of the appellant and electricity and water

dues were being paid by him. The applicant can maintain

herself from the money received from the sale of agricultural

land and rent. Considering the evidence on record, the trial

Court found that the applicant-respondent did not have

sufficient means to maintain herself.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

3. Revision petition was filed by the present appellant.

Challenge was to the direction to pay Rs.1500/- p.m. by the

trial Court. The stand was that the applicant was able to

maintain herself from her income was reiterated. The

revisional court analysed the evidence and held that the

appellant’s monthly income was more than Rs.10,000/- and

the amount received as rent by the respondent-claimant was

not sufficient to maintain herself. The revision was

accordingly dismissed. The matter was further carried before

the High Court by filing an application in terms of Section 482

Cr.P.C. The High Court noticed that the conclusions have

been arrived at on appreciation of evidence and, therefore,

there is no scope for any interference.

4. Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"125. (1) If any person having sufficient means

neglects or refuses to maintain\027

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child,

whether married or not, unable to maintain

itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being

a married daughter) who has attained

majority, where such child is, by reason of any

physical or mental abnormality or injury

unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain

himself or herself,

a Magistrate of the First Class may, upon proof of

such neglect or refusal, order such person t