Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shakun Bai vs Ramji on 28 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: I(1998)DMC464
Author: Rajeev Gupta
Bench: Rajeev Gupta
JUDGMENT Rajeev Gupta, J.
1. Petitioner Smt. Shakun Bai, a hapless and disappointed wife of non-petitioner Ramji; has knocked the doors of this Court, by filing this petition, under Section 482, Cr.P.C., being frustrated by the orders of the Courts below, turning down her prayer for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner Smt. Shakun Bai had filed an application, against her husband/ non-petitioner Ramji, for grant of maintenance, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. In his reply, filed to the above application, non-petitioner/husband Ramji admitted the status of petitioner Shakun Bai as his 'legally wedded wife'. It was further admitted that the non-petitioner had kept a mistress, and two children were born out of their relations. The husband however took the plea that he had already divorced his wife, petitioner Shakun Bai, in the customary form of his community, and was, therefore, not liable to any maintenance.
3. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, found that the petitioner/wife was not entitled to grant of maintenance, as she was a divorced wife and had approached the Court quite late, for grant of maintenance. Her application was, therefore, dismissed vide order dated 30.1.1989, passed in Criminal Case No. 55/86. The above order of dismissal of the petitioner's application was affirmed by the Revisional Court, on more or less the same reasonings, vide order dated 3.9.1994, passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Cr. Revision No. 13/89. Hence, this petition by the wife under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The 'status' of petitioner Shakun Bai, as his 'legally wedded wife', is admitted by non-petitioner Ramji in his reply as well as in his statement in the Court. The fact that non-petitioner/husband Ramji had kept a mistress, who has given birth to two children out of her relations with him, too is admitted by the husband. Petitioner/wife Shakun Bai specifically pleaded in her application that she has no independent source of income and/therefore, was unable to maintain herself. Though the above plea was disputed by the husband in his reply, but no evidence could be adduced by the husband in support of his rebuttal. Therefore, it can safely be held that petitioner/wife Shakun Bai had no independent source of income and is, therefore, unable to maintain herself.
5. On the above admitted and proved facts, the Courts below were legacy bound to grant maintenance to the petitioner/wife. The Courts below have fallen into error in denying the petitioner/wife her rightful claim of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., merely on the grounds that she has been divorced by non-petitioner/husband Ramji, and that she had approached the Court quite late.
6. Explanation (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., reads as follows:
"'Wife' includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not re-married."
In view of the above specific and unambiguous provision of law, this Court does not deem it necessary to dilate much on the issue, and unhesitatingly hold that petitioner/wife Shakun Bai, inspite other having obtained a 'divorce' from her husband, non-petitioner/husband Ramji, as is alleged by him, continues to be entitled to receive maintenance from her husband, under the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
7. Now the other point, considered sufficient by the Courts below, for dismissing the petitioner's application for grant of maintenance, that the petitioner/ wife had approached the Court quite late i.e., after about 7 years of her having obtained divorce from her husband. At the first place, the Code of Criminal Procedure does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing of an application, under Section 125, for grant of maintenance. Secondly, there may be various reasons for the delay in filing the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. As under the scheme, maintenance cannot be granted beyond the date of the filing of the application, the husband, in the event of delay in filing the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C., must thank his wife for not approaching the Court early, or else he would have to pay the maintenance for that period also. Delay in filing an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C., can never be a ground for debarring the wife, who is otherwise legally entitled to receive maintenance from her husband, from seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
8. As the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have committed grave illegality in refusing to grant maintenance to the petitioner/wife, on the grounds mentioned above, which are wholly untenable in law, the petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., deserves to be allowed.
9. As for the quantum of maintenance, it has come in the evidence that non-petitioner/husband Ramji owns several acres of agricultural land. Petitioner Shakun Bai, in her application, had sought maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month, which comes to Rs. 171- per day only. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the recent past, the prices of essential commodities have undergone a steep rise. Though an amount of Rs. 500/-, in the present context, is inadequately low for maintaining a fully grown up person, but the maximum limit of grant of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., as it exists today, is Rs. 500/- only. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to grant an amount of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance to petitioner/wife Shakun Bai from her husband, non-petitioner Ramji. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court further deems it proper to direct that the above amount of maintenance shall be payable from the date of the application, which was filed on 23.7.1986.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.1.1989, passed by the Trial Court, in Criminal Case No. 55/86, and order dated 3.9.1994, passed by the Revisional Court, in Cr. Revision No. 13/89, are hereby set aside. The application, filed by petitioner/ wife Shakun Bai, under Section 125, Cr.P.C., is allowed, and non-petitioner husband Ramji is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- per month, to his wife, as maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., from the date of the application, which was filed on 23.7.1986.