Allahabad High Court
Pushpendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 January, 2020
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1091 of 2002 Revisionist :- Pushpendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- K.K. Arora Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
None for revisionist and opposite party no. 2.
Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
As this Revision is pending since the year 2002 and no one is appearing on behalf of the parties for argument, thus, this Revision is being decided finally.
This Revision has been preferred against order dated 17.07.2002 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No. 474 of 2000 (Smt. Babita Vs. Pushpendra Kumar) whereby maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month was awarded from the date of application to the date of order and Rs. 700/- per month was awarded after date of order in favour of opposite party no. 2 Smt. Babita against revisionist.
Perusal of the record shows that marriage of revisionist and opposite party no. 2 Smt. Babita was solemnized in the year 1994. Opposite party no. 2 has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. inter-alia alleging that she was harassed by revisionist/her husband on account of dowry and that it was not safe to reside with him. It was alleged that since 24.07.1999, opposite party no. 2 was residing at her parental home and revisionist was not providing any maintenance to her whereas he has income of Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture land of 12 bighas. Revisionist has filed objection against application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein marriage of parties is not disputed, however, the allegations of harassment were denied. Both the parties have entered in witness box and have deposed about their respective case. After hearing, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut has allowed application of opposite party no. 2 granting maintenance @ Rs.500/- to her vide impugned order dated 17.07.2002.
Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. As per section 125 of Cr. P. C. if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor children whether married or not, and his father or mother unable to maintain themselves, the Magistrate First Class upon proof of such refusal or neglect direct such person to make monthly allowances and to pay the same to such persons from time to time.
It is well established that object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty. It is awarded to her so that she can survive. The fact that time is spent between the date of the application and a final adjudication and an award in favour of the wife, does not mean that she had enough funds to maintain herself. When the lower court comes to the conclusion after trial that the wife is entitled to an amount of maintenance, the assessment in fact relates back to the date of the application. In Jagir Kaur & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh[AIR 1963 SC 1521], the Supreme Court observed with respect to Chapter XXXVI of Cr.P.C. of 1898 that provisions for maintenance of wives and children intend to serve a social purpose. Section 488 prescribes forums for a proceeding to enable a deserted wife or a helpless child, legitimate or illegitimate, to get urgent relief. In Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors [1969 (3) SCC 802], the Supreme Court, discussing Section 488 of the old Cr.P.C, held that Section 488 provides a summary remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to any religion and has no relationship with the personal law of the parties. In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and Ors. [AIR 1978 SC 1807], the Court held that Section 125 is a reincarnation of Section 488 of the Cr.P.C. of 1898 except for the fact that parents have also been brought into the category of persons entitled for maintenance. It observed that this provision is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect, and inhibit neglect of women, children, old and infirm and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. Again in Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) [(1991) 2 SCC 375], a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that Section 125 of the Code of 1973 is meant to achieve a social purpose and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution.
The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum & Ors. reported in [(1985) 2 SCC 556], considering the provision of Section 125 of the 1973 Code, opined that the said provision is truly secular in character and is different from the personal law of the parties. The Court further held that such provisions are essentially of a prophylactic character and cut across the barriers of religion. The Court further held that the liability imposed by Section 125 to maintain close relatives, who are indigent, is founded upon the individual's obligation to the society to prevent vagrancy and destitution.
In the instant case, it is not disputed that opposite party no. 2 Smt. Babita is legally wedded wife of revisionist. There are allegations against revisionist that he has harassed opposite party no. 2 and has demanded dowry. Learned Family Court has made detailed discussion of entire evidence and came to the conclusion that opposite party no. 2 deserved maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month. Learned court below has found income of revisionist in the tune of Rs.1800/- per month from the date of application to date of order Rs.700/- per month from date of order to onwards. No illegality, perversity or irregularity could be pointed out in the findings of the court below.
Considering entire material of record, it cannot be said that impugned order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut suffers from any such perversity, illegality or error of jurisdiction so as to warrant any interference in this Revision.
Instant Revision lacks merit and thus, it is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 2.1.2020 Mohit