Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Chitti Prasada Rao And Ors. vs Chitti Asiripolamma And Anr. on 19 January, 1993
Equivalent citations: I(1994)DMC253
JUDGMENT B. Subhashan Reddy, J.
This revision case arose out of the maintenance proceedings initiated by the mother i.e., the 1st respondent herein against her three sons invoking the provisions contained under Section 125 Cr. P.C. The maintenance is claimed on the ground that she has no means to maintain herself and that her sons i.e., the petitioners 1 to 3 herein neglected her. M.C. No. 20 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajam filed for maintenance by the mother was ordered on 14.9.1992. Under the said order an amount of Rs. 500/- was ordered to be paid, as sought for, towards maintenance.
1. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the said order is an ex parte order without notice to the respondents in M.C. who are the revision petitioners herein. The impugned order shows that no notice was issued to the respondents and the order of maintenance, the relevant portion of which is as follows :
"The statement of the petitioner prima facie discloses the dire necessity and immediate help."
makes it clear that the learned Magistrate intended to pass interim order but erroneously passed the said order as a final order in the maintenance case without issuing notice to the petitioners herein and making enquiry.
2. From the records produced before me, it is not clear as to why the notices were not served. The order passed by the Court below also does not disclose as to whether the notices are served on the respondents i.e., the revision petitioners herein. The meintenance case has been filed on 13.6.1992 while the order of maintenance was passed on 14.9.1992. Ms. Nanda, who has been appointed by the Court as Amicus Curiae for the 1st respondent contends that the very fact that three months have lapsed from the date of the institution of the maintenance case by the 1st respondent is proof positive that the petitioners herein were purposely evading the notice and as such the Court below was correct in awarding even the final maintenance as such evasion of notices would amount to service in law and as such, the final maintenance order passed by the Court below on 14.9.1992 is valid and unassailable. But, without there being any material on record, it is not proper for me to comment that there is evasion of notice on the part of the petitioners. As such, I conclude that the order of maintenance dated 14.9.1992 was passed without notice to the petitioners and in that view of the matter, the said order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside.
3. But, yet another question remains as to what is the immediate relief to be granted to the 1st respondent herein who has filed the maintenance case. She is examined as P.W. 1 and the Lower Court was satisfied that there was urgent need for awarding maintenance and as such awarded Rs. 500/- per month. As already stated above, what prompted the Court of Magistrate to award the maintenance was urgency of the matter. As such even if the order of maintenance dated 14.9.1992 passed by the lower Court is not sustainable for the reason that the same was without notice to the revision petitioners, in view of the emergent situation arising in this case for awarding maintenance, I treat the said order passed by the lower Court on 14.9.1992 as an order of interim maintenance pending the disposal of the main case. The power of the Court of grant interim maintenance is well-founded and is supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Savitri v. Govind Singh. The Supreme Court in the said judgment had also held that in appropriate cases, the interim maintenance can be ordered even ex-parte on the basis of affidavit or application. In the instant case, even though there is no application for interm maintenance or an affidavit thereof, the statement made by the 1st respondent as P.W. 1 can be treated as an application without standing for any technicalities as to the form. Treating the same as an application or affidavit, as the case may be, as the said deposition was made on the oath before the Court and in person carrying more credence than the prepared affidavit signed by the party, I feed that it is an appropriate case where three sons who are economically well placed can be directed to pay interim maintenance to their mother who is in distress according to her statement and which has been prima facie found to be true by the Court of Magistrate below.
4. The next aspect is as to the quantum of maintenance. In the main maintenance case, Rs. 500/- per month is sought for. I am of the considered view that ordering 3 of the revision petitioners herein to pay Rs. 300/- towards interim maintenance to their mother i.e., the 1st respondent herein is proper pending the disposal of the main case. As the consequence of non-complying the order of maintenance results in penal consequences of even imprisoning the revision petitioners herein, I order them to pay Rs. 100/- each to the 1st respondent herein individually per month and it is treated as a libility in several and such of the petitioners who fail to comply the order of payment of interim maintenance mentioned supra shall be liable for the resultant penal consequences individually. The interim maintenance at the rate mentioned above shall be payable by the petitioners commencing from the month of Sept. 92. The ad hoc payment of Rs. 750/- which was ordered to be paid by my learned brother, Neeladri Rao, J., at the time of admission shall be treated towards legal expenses. As such, each of the petitioners shall pay Rs. 600/- totalling to Rs. 1,800/- towards the arrears of interim maintenance to the 1st respondent by the end of February, 1993 and regularly continue to pay @ Rs. 100/- each within 10th day of each calendar month, the first date being 10th March, 1993 and so on.
5. Before parting with the case, I feel it necessary that the very intendment and object of making a provision for maintenance specifying the outer limit of Rs. 500/- under Section 125 Cr. P.C. (hitherto Section 448 Cr. P.C. before amendment) inspite of there being a common law remedy of filing a suit for maintenance, is to provide speedy and efficacious remedy to the economically poor and neglected wives, children and parents. That has got a laudable social object in it to see that such persons do not starve. No doubt, in view of the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court mentioned supra in Savitri's case (supra), interim maintenance can be awarded. But, most of the people who seek maintenance may not be aware of the law of the land as it stands now and awarding of interim maintenance which may vary from case to case and also application of mind will also take considerable time as is evident in the instant case. As such, it is desirable, having regard to the object and intendment of Section 125 Cr. P.C. to have an expeditious disposal of the maintenance cases arising under the above provision of law within 6 months from the date of the institution of such cases. In no event, the case of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. should be pending for more than one year, unless interrupted by stay from the superior Court. As the summons procedure is applicable for service of notices, it should not be difficult for the Courts entertaining the maintenance cases to enforce attendance of the respondents by following the said procedure effectively and if necessary by issuance of bailable warrants, should it be felt that there is evasion of the receipt of notices which are sent at the first instance.
6. This Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of.