Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagir Singh vs Jasbir Kaur And Ors. on 2 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: I(2005)DMC439
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Petitioner Jagir Singh (husband) has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 7.5.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana vide which an application filed by respondent-wife under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance for herself and her two minor children, was allowed, and each of them was awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.
2. Petitioner-husband is working as Carpenter in the PRTC and drawing salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month. In this case the marriage between petitioner respondent No. 1 was solemnized in the year 1980. Out of this wedlock 3 children were born, one son and two daughters. One of the daughters was married and the remaining two children who are minor, are living with the respondent-wife. The case of the respondent-wife was that the petitioner usually remained under the influence of liquor. He was also used to consume other intoxicants like poppy husk, opium, etc. It was further alleged that petitioner had refused to maintain her and his children. Since the respondents were unable to maintain themselves, they filed an application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
3. Although, the petitioner-husband did not dispute his relationship with the respondents, yet he contested the aforesaid application on the allegation that respondent-wife is living in adultery and, thus, is not entitled for any maintenance as provided under Sub-section (4) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. The Trial Court rejected the said contention of the petitioner-husband in the absence of any material to substantiate his allegations and came to the conclusion that when there is no evidence, the interim maintenance cannot be denied merely on the bald allegation that the respondent-wife is living in adultery, and, thus, awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to each of the respondents.
4. In this petition, Counsel for the petitioners raised two-fold submissions, firstly, that since the petitioner has alleged that the respondent wife is living in adultery, therefore, no interim maintenance can be granted to her in view of amendment made in Sub-section (4) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. by the Legislation vide Act No. 50 of 2001. Vide this amendment words "allowance for maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings, as the case may be", have been added in Sub-section (4), which provide that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for maintenance or interim maintenance if she is living in adultery. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, thus, contends that intention of Subsection (4) is very much clear that no wife, who is living in adultery, shall be entitled to any allowance including interim maintenance. It is further contended that word "allowance" not only includes the initial maintenance amount, but includes the interim maintenance amount also. Therefore, the respondent-wife, in the case in hand, who is living in adultery, is not entitled to any allowance under Sub-section (4) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. Secondly, he submitted that respondent No. 2 is major, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. However, he admitted that respondent No. 2 is still unmarried.
5. I have considered the aforesaid two submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and am not inclined to accept the same. In my view, interim maintenance cannot be denied to the respondent-wife merely on the ground that petitioner-husband has made an allegation that she is living in adultery. Denial of interim maintenance just on the basis of such an allegation would not be justified until and unless the allegation is substantiated by any cogent evidence by the husband.
6. The contention of the petitioner-husband that intention of inserting certain words in Sub-section (4) clearly denies the wife to claim interim maintenance merely on the allegation of the husband that she is living in adultery, cannot be accepted. Such an interpretation would, in fact, defeat the very purpose and object of Section 125, Cr.P.C. in my opinion, the interim maintenance cannot be denied to the respondent-wife on the basis of mere allegation levelled by the husband against the wife that she is living in adultery. If such contention is accepted, then no wife would be able to receive the interim maintenance and the very purpose and object of the Legislation in enacting Section 125, Cr.P.C. to provide interim relief to the destitute wife and children, would be defeated. Thus, I find no force in this contention of the Counsel for the petitioner.
7. The second contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is also without any substance. Respondent No. 2-daughter is unmarried and she is legally entitled to be maintained by her father till she is married, even though she may be a major. This is very much clear from a bare perusal of language of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code.
In view of the position explained above, I find no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed.