IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2186-2187 OF 2017

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NOS. 6707-6708 OF 2017)

CHITRA MAJUMDER

.....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ARUN MAJUMDER

.....RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2) We have heard the counsel for the parties finally at this stage

itself, as the issue involved revolves in a narrow campus and the

counsel for the parties were ready to argue the matter finally.

3) Briefly stated, the appellant is the wife of the respondent who had

filed a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against him for getting maintenance

allowance for herself and her two minor children. Maintenance

was awarded by the trial court in their favour vide order dated

July 29, 2011. After sometime, when the children attained the

age of majority, the respondent has filed application under

Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the order granting

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2186-2187 of 2017

Page 1 of 4

Digitally signed by

ASHWANI KUMAR

Date: 2018.01.16

17:37:18 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

maintenance allowance for the two children of the appellant. In

this application, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Third Class,

Howrah passed an order dated September 23, 2013 thereby

cancelling the maintenance order dated July 29, 2011 passed in

favour of the two children of the appellant. While doing so, the

Judicial Magistrate further ordered as under:

“…However as being the father he is also responsible

for the education and upbringing of his sons. Hence,

he is directed to make a fixed deposit of Rs.80,000/-

each in the name of his two sons namely Abhijit

Majumder and Debojit Majumder i.e. Rs.1 lakh sixty

thousand on the whole immediately towards the

education expenses of his sons.”

4) As the main order cancelling the maintenance granted in favour

of two children was in favour of the respondent, obviously the

respondent was satisfied with that part. However, he felt

aggrieved by the direction to make the fixed deposit of

Rs.80,000/- each in the name of his two sons and, thus,

challenged that order by filing revision application in the High

Court. The High Court has allowed the revision application on the

ground that there is no provision in Section 125 or Section 127 of

Cr.P.C. which empowers the Magistrate to pass such an order

and, therefore, the Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction. On

that basis, aforequoted direction of the Judicial Magistrate has

been treated as deleted from the order passed by it.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2186-2187 of 2017

Page 2 of 4

5) No doubt, there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. empowering a

Judicial Magistrate to pass any such direction. At the same time,

we find that order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate in equity

inasmuch as even after attaining the majority, the two children of

the appellant were still students and there was need for providing

educational expenses for them. As a father, the respondent owes

moral and legal responsibility to bear such expenses, more so,

when the appellant is not having required financial capacity to

undertake such expenses.

6) In these circumstances, in exercise of our powers conferred

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct the

respondent to make a Fixed Deposit of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees

Eighty Thousand) each, in the name of his two sons, namely

Abhijeet Majumder and Debojit Majumder (i.e. total of

Rs.1,60,000/-) for meeting their educational expenses. Appeals

stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to cost.

.............................................J.

(A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J.

(ASHOK BHUSHAN)

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 15, 2017.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2186-2187 of 2017

Page 3 of 4

ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T