The High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging lower court orders granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to a wife and son. The court held the orders were not perverse and there was sufficient evidence.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1098 of 2005
Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
None is present on behalf of petitioner even in the revised list/call. The writ petition is being decided on merit in absence of learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This writ petition has been preferred against judgment and order dated 15.12.2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2004; Rajendra Kumar vs. State and others; dismissing the revision and upholding the judgment and order dated 19.5.2004, passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor in Criminal Misc. Case No. 14 of 2003; Maya Devi vs. Rajendra Kumar, whereby application moved by respondent no. 2-wife, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was allowed and petitioner was directed to pay Rs.400/- per month to respondent no. 2 and Rs.300/- to his minor son as monthly maintenance allowance from the date of order.
The petition has been filed on the grounds that the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary, perverse and against the evidence available on record.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that there is no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order impugned, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
From the perusal of record, it appears that marriage between petitioner and respondent no. 2 is admitted; one child was borne out of their wedlock; due to misbehaviour of petitioner, respondent no. 2-wife is living separately; opposite party no. 2 moved an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed vide order dated 19.5.2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2004 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2004. Hence, this petition.
While passing the impugned orders, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact and the view taken by both courts below is possible view.
Question is whether opposite party no. 2 has succeeded to prove her case. Prove is defined under Section 3 of Evidence Act which is quoted here as under:-
" Proved ".- A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. "
Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary proceeding. Order does not determine rights of parties as it was held by the Apex Court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another, AIR 1999 SC 3348 , wherein following has been observed:-
" It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents. For the purpose of getting his rights determined, the appellant has also filed a Civil Suit, which is pending before the trial court. In such a situation, this Court in S. Sethurathinam Pillai v. Barbara alias Dolly Sethurthinam, {1971 (3) SCC 923} observed that maintenance under Section 488 Cr.P.C., 1898 (Similar to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusion for grant of maintenance could be reached. It was held that order passed under Section 488 is a summary order which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties; the decision of the criminal court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not operate as decisive in any civil proceeding between the parties. "
In the case of Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others, (AIR 1978 SC 1807) Krishna Iyer, J dealing with interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. observed (at Para 9) thus:-
" This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words
with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause of the derelicts. "
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice on this point. It is also pertinent to mention here that intention of legislature also shows that this provision is measure of social justice because initially amount of maintenance was fixed to Rs.500/per month. Subsequently, it was enhanced upto Rs.5000/- per month and later on these words have been deleted and present position is that there is no financial limit for maintenance under this section.
In such circumstances, this Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present petition is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.9.2018 NS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts committed any illegality, impropriety, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error while granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Whether the evidence satisfied the definition of 'proved' under the Evidence Act to justify the maintenance order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and AnotherReferred¶14
AIR 1999 SC 3348 · Who else cites this
S. Sethurathinam Pillai v. Barbara alias Dolly SethurthinamReferred¶15
1971 (3) SCC 923 · Who else cites this
Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and othersRelied on¶16
AIR 1978 SC 1807 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rajendra Kumar
State Of U.P.
Maya Devi
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
