Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Chitra Majumder vs Arun Majumder on 15 December, 2017
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2186-2187 OF 2017
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NOS. 6707-6708 OF 2017)
CHITRA MAJUMDER .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ARUN MAJUMDER .....RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
Leave granted.
2) We have heard the counsel for the parties finally at this stage itself, as the issue involved revolves in a narrow campus and the counsel for the parties were ready to argue the matter finally.
3) Briefly stated, the appellant is the wife of the respondent who had filed a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against him for getting maintenance allowance for herself and her two minor children. Maintenance was awarded by the trial court in their favour vide order dated Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR July 29, 2011. After sometime, when the children attained the Date: 2018.01.16 17:37:18 IST Reason: age of majority, the respondent has filed application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the order granting Criminal Appeal Nos. 2186-2187 of 2017 Page 1 of 4 maintenance allowance for the two children of the appellant. In this application, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Third Class, Howrah passed an order dated September 23, 2013 thereby cancelling the maintenance order dated July 29, 2011 passed in favour of the two children of the appellant. While doing so, the Judicial Magistrate further ordered as under:
“…However as being the father he is also responsible for the education and upbringing of his sons. Hence, he is directed to make a fixed deposit of Rs.80,000/- each in the name of his two sons namely Abhijit Majumder and Debojit Majumder i.e. Rs.1 lakh sixty thousand on the whole immediately towards the education expenses of his sons.”
4) As the main order cancelling the maintenance granted in favour of two children was in favour of the respondent, obviously the respondent was satisfied with that part. However, he felt aggrieved by the direction to make the fixed deposit of Rs.80,000/- each in the name of his two sons and, thus, challenged that order by filing revision application in the High Court. The High Court has allowed the revision application on the ground that there is no provision in Section 125 or Section 127 of Cr.P.C. which empowers the Magistrate to pass such an order and, therefore, the Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction. On that basis, aforequoted direction of the Judicial Magistrate has been treated as deleted from the order passed by it.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2186-2187 of 2017 Page 2 of 4
5) No doubt, there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. empowering a Judicial Magistrate to pass any such direction. At the same time, we find that order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate in equity inasmuch as even after attaining the majority, the two children of the appellant were still students and there was need for providing educational expenses for them. As a father, the respondent owes moral and legal responsibility to bear such expenses, more so, when the appellant is not having required financial capacity to undertake such expenses.
6) In these circumstances, in exercise of our powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct the respondent to make a Fixed Deposit of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) each, in the name of his two sons, namely Abhijeet Majumder and Debojit Majumder (i.e. total of Rs.1,60,000/-) for meeting their educational expenses. Appeals stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to cost.
.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI) .............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15, 2017.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2186-2187 of 2017 Page 3 of 4 ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.)Nos.6707-6708/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-11-2016 in CRR No. 4222/2013 and dated 19-05-2017 in CRAN No. 1543/2017 passed by the Calcutta High Court) CHITRA MAJUMDER Petitioner(s) VERSUS ARUN MAJUMDER Respondent(s) (With IA No.79468/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.79470/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 15-12-2017 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Azmat H. Amanullah, Adv.
Mr. C. K. Rai, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Kant Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kunwar Ratnesh Ratn, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeals stand allowed in terms of the signed order.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed order is placed on the file.]
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2186-2187 of 2017 Page 4 of 4