Criminal Writ Petition challenging an order awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The single judge, hearing via ex-parte considering counsel absence, dismissed the petition holding the impugned order lawful and without jurisdictional error.
The criminal writ petition is dismissed and the impugned maintenance order is affirmed.
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. - 157 of 2003
Petitioner :- Syed Asim Miyan Respondent :- Smt. Reshma Bi & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1-List has been revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents are not present. Learned A.G.A. is present.
2-Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
3-This petition has been filed against the order dated 12.6.2001 passed by Additional Civil Judge/A.C.J.M, Rampur, on the application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by opposite party no. 1-Smt. Reshma Bi and opposite party no.2-Suleman Miyan. The said application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and Rs.500/- per month was awarded to the opposite party no. 1 and Rs.500/- per month to her child (opposite party no. 2) till he becomes major from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. payable by the petitioner.
4-From perusal of the record, it transpires that it is admitted by both the parties that opposite party no. 2 is their son. P.W.1Smt. Reshma Bi, P.W.2- Tahir and D.W.1-Asif Miyan were examined. According to Talaqnama, the petitioner was agreed to pay Rs.300/- per month as maintenance to his child but he is not paying the same to his child. But later on, Smt. Reshma Bi, wife of the petitioner, stated that she is unable to maintain her child.
5-On the other hand, the learned AGA has supported the impugned order and contended that the impugned order is just and legal and there is no illegality or infirmity and the present criminal writ petition is bereft of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
6-Indisputably the opposite party no.1 is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The trial court has recorded finding that opposite party no.1 is unable to maintain herself and her child. There is no dispute regarding matrimonial relationship between petitioner and respondent no. 1. Admittedly, respondent no. 1 is living separately on account of matrimonial discord. There is sufficient material on record to prove that respondent no. 1 is simple house wife who does not have any independent earning. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide
financial succour to the respondent no. 1. As far as quantum of amount is concerned, it is apparent that Additional Civil Judge/A.C.J.M, Rampur itself has provided a very meagre amount to respondent no. 1. Had respondent no. 1 been living with petitioner, he would have had to spend at least this much amount on her. Therefore, it cannot be said that exorbitant amount has been allowed by the concerned court. To my mind, the awarded maintenance amount to the respondent no. 1 from the date of application is wholly justified.
7-It should be kept in mind that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is enacted for social justice and specially to protect woman and children and also old and infirm parents and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 14(3), re-enforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. The provision gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves. Otherwise also maintenance proceeding is not to punish a person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy and destitution by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have normally claim to support.
8-Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no scope for interference in the impugned order. The impugned order is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from material illegality, irregularity, perversity and jurisdictional error.
9-The criminal writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
10-Certify this judgment to the lower court immediately.
Order Date :- 18.7.2018
OP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal writ petition challenging the maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is maintainable and deserves interference.
Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court is exorbitant or insufficient.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Syed Asim Miyan
Smt. Reshma Bi
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
