This revisional application challenging a Family Court order mandating monthly maintenance was dismissed. The court held that revisional interference in Section 125 proceedings is limited to perversities in evidence appreciation and none were established here.
The revisional application was dismissed; the impugned order dated 18.11.2019 was upheld.
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.
RPFAM NO.134 OF 2020
The matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.
The Petitioner by filing this Revision under section19(2) of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with section -401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”) has called in question the legality and propriety of an order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in Cr.P. No.15 of 2018 in a proceeding under Section – 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
By the said order, the Court below has directed the Petitioner (Opposite Party before the Court below) to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the Opposite Party No.1 (Petitioner No.1 in the Court below) and Rs.2,000/- to the Opposite Party No.2 (Petitioner No.2 in the Court below) w.e.f. the date of filing of this application i.e. 27.11.2018. The Petitioner is the husband of the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.2 is their minor daughter whose age at present is around six years.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in this case the determination of the monthly income of the Petitioner as has been made is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. He submits that the matter has been decided against the Petitioner simply being swayed away by the allegation made by the Opposite Parties that the Petitioner is residing separately with another lady. According to him,
= 2 =
taking a cue from that, it has been held that the Opposite Parties have been neglected and refused to be maintained by the Petitioner. It is submitted that while passing the order as to fixation of date with effect from which the maintenance as directed would be paid, the Court below has not assigned any reason in saying as to why it would be granted with effect from the date of application instead of being from the date of order.
Keeping in view the submission made; the impugned order being perused; it is seen that both sides have made allegation and counter allegation assassinating the character of each other. The factum of separate stay of the Petitioner at a distant place leaving the Petitioners without any support is seen to have been taken into account by the Court below in holding that the Opposite Parties under the circumstance has the right of separate residence and for that, the neglect and refusal by the Petitioner to maintain the Opposite parties has been the conclusion.
The interference of the court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as to the factual findings in a proceeding under section 125, Cr.P.C., which is summary in nature with the object of preventing vagrancy is very limited and its permissibility stands justified when the findings of fact are found to be the outcome of perverse appreciation of evidence; that when some important evidence which was required to be
= 3 =
considered have either been totally ignored or overlooked or that some extraneous have been read into evidence, which if would have been done correctly, findings to the contrary or different to the one rendered would have been the result. The findings rendered by the Court below as to negligence and refusal from the side of the Petitioner to maintain the Opposite Parties as also the determination of the quantum of composition are seen to be based on proper appreciation of evidence in the back drop of rival case projected and nothing is shown that the Court below has kept aside any such material evidence from the arena of consideration nor has taken any such fact/s not surfacing in evidence into account in arriving at those findings.
For the aforesaid, therefore this Court finds no such reason / justification to entertain this Application. Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
……………………. D. Dash, J.
Narayan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court has jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact regarding income and refusal to maintain in a Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding.
Whether the lower court's order finding the petitioner guilty of neglect is based on perverse appreciation of evidence.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
The Petitioner
Opposite Party No.1
Opposite Party No.2
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
