Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Meera Sahu vs Narayan Sahu on 27 March, 2019
1 M.Cr.C. No. 52433/2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : JUSTICE SHRI VISHNU PRATAP SINGH
CHAUHAN
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO. 52433/2018
Smt. Meera Sahu
Vs.
Narayan Sahu
Shri Kashi Ram Patel, learned counsel for the
applicant.
None for the respondent.
ORDER
(27.03.2019) The applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by order dated 25.08.2018 passed by the JMFC, Sirmaur, District Rewa in MJC No. 11/2013 whereby the learned JMFC Court allowed the application of the applicant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for interim maintenance and awarded an interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month from the date of order i.e. 25.08.2018. 2 M.Cr.C. No. 52433/2018
2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that the applicant is legally wedded wife of respondent. The respondent neglected to maintain the applicant. Applicant is not having any permanent source of income to maintain herself. Respondent is working and earned Rs. 25 to 30 thousand per month. The applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for granting maintenance allowance against the respondent and also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance till disposal of that case. The respondent has delayed the application by not filing the reply in time.
3. The applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 04.12.2013 and order of interim maintenance passed on 25.08.2018. Learned JMFC Court order to grant maintenance from the date of order not from the date of filing of the application.
4. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has filed this petition on the ground that the learned JMFC Court failed to see that the applicant is a house wife and is not having any source of income. Respondent seeks time to 3 M.Cr.C. No. 52433/2018 file reply on one pretext to another. Interim maintenance should be given on the date of filing of the application, because after 5 years the learned JMFC Court allowed the interim maintenance. Respondent has denied for the interim maintenance in spite of the fact that the applicant is a legally wedded wife of the respondent.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order as well as the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance. Application for interim maintenance filed on 04.12.2013 along with the affidavit filed by the applicant. Provision of interim maintenance inserted in 125 of the Cr.P.C. w.e.f. 24.09.2001. This provision is meant for maintenance of wife or her children who was neglected by the person who is legally bound to maintain them.
6. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The interim maintenance order passed on 25.08.2018 after four years, eight months from the date of filing of the interim application. No doubt, the respondent is in benefit for 4 M.Cr.C. No. 52433/2018 adopting the delayed tactics for filing the reply. No doubt, this is an abuse of process of law. This is an admitted fact that applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, the respondent is legally duty bound to maintain her wife. The order of the interim maintenance should be passed from the date of filing of the application because the interim application was supported with an affidavit filed by the applicant. Prima facie it shows that she is not able to maintain herself. She is legally wedded wife of the respondent and respondent failed to provide money for maintenance to his legally wedded wife.
7. Learned JMFC Court prima facie committed an error for granting interim maintenance from the date of order after 4 years 8 months from the date of filing of the application for interim maintenance.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reema Salkan V. Sumer Singh Salkan, AIR 2018 SC 4606 in para 82 has held as under:-
"82. The husband being an able-bodied person is duty bound to maintain his wife who is 5 M.Cr.C. No. 52433/2018 unable to maintain herself under the personal law arising out of the marital status and is not under contractual obligation. The following observation of the Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, AIR 2014 SC 2875, is relevant: -
"3.....Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar 6 M.Cr.C. No. 52433/2018 manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to 7 M.Cr.C. No. 52433/2018 earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds."
(emphasis applied)
9. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reema Salkan (supra), this Court is inclined to amend the order passed by the Lower Court by invoking the inherent powers envisaged under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court is partly amended and it is enforceable from the date of filing of the application i.e. 04.12.2013 instead of date of order i.e. 25.08.2018.
(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2019.03.29 16:07:19 +05'30'