Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mehatlal vs Smt. Imla Alias Seema on 30 October, 2014
M.Cr.C.No.8186 of 2014
1
Mohatlal vs Smt. Imla and others
30 / 10 / 2 0 1 4
Shri S.B. Shrivastava, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain, Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 05/05 / 2 0 14 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Criminal Revision No.176 /2 013 and Criminal Revision No.173 /2013.
After perusal of the impugned order and other documents available on record following facts are not disputed by the parties; hence detailed pleadings are not required to be discussed as mentioned in the usual course in the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.: -
That, the respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of the applicant and marriage was performed on 20.5.2004 according to Hindu rites and rituals.
That, the respondents No.2 & 3 are children of this couple.
That the applicant is posted as Teacher at I.T.I. Balaghat.
That as per his salary certificate for the month of July, 2013, the applicant was getting a total emolument Rs.29042 / - , out of which after deduction, he was getting Rs.23,592 / - per month cash in hand.
Shri S.B. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant mainly pointing out the errors committed by learned Revision Court while passing the impugned order dated 05/05 / 2 014 submits that the respondent No.1 is M.Cr.C.No.8186 of 2014 2 living separately from the applicant without sufficient reasons, hence she is not entitled for any maintenance. It is further submitted that this aspect has not been considered by learned Revisional Court in true prospective. Learned counsel for the applicant strenuously relied on paras 10 and 13 of the order passed by learned JMFC, Balaghat.
Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that during compromise proceedings before the police, this fact is admitted by the applicant that he had beaten the respondent No.1 and for this reasons the respondent No.1 is living separately. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that learned courts below have rightly awarded maintenance to the respondents, which does not warrant any interference, hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the material made available by the parties and also perused the impugned order.
Section 125 of the Code is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by the Apex Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. reported in (AIR 1978 SC 1807) falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy M.Cr.C.No.8186 of 2014 3 remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted by the Apex Court in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in [2005(2) SCC 503] .
In Chaturbhuj vs. Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316 , the Apex Court observed as follows:-
"The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support.
In the light of above discussed legal position the object of the maintenance proceedings is clear that it is a measure of social justice to give effect to natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves.
Learned counsel for the applicant also filed certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2011 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in Hindu Marriage Act Case No. 24- A/ 2011, whereby learned Court allowed the petition filed by the applicant under the provisions of Section 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
It is pertinent to mention here that without going into merits and demerits of sufficiency of respondent No.1 to live separately, it is clear that divorced wife is also entitled for maintenance till she did not remarry.M.Cr.C.No.8186 of 2014 4
Considering the above enunciation of law, it transpires that looking to the social and economic status of parties and facts and circumstances of the case concerned, the learned Revisional Court has affixed a reasonable amount of interim maintenance. Hence order passed by the Revisional Court is impeccable and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
Accordingly, this revision is hereby dismissed.
(SUBHASH KAKADE)
SJ/- JUDGE