Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application on 20-8-95 and fixed the case for evidence of the respondent on his application under Section 125(4) Cr.PC. This order passed by the learned Magistrate on 16-9-94 was challenged in the Criminal Revision No. 126/94. The Revisional Court on 17-11-94 stayed the recovery of maintenance amount due from December, 1992 to February, 1994. The Revision No. 126/94 was finally decided on 26-4-95 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar who came to the conclusion that since in the original application filed by the petitioners i.e., wife and two minor children, the prayer was confined to the recovery of maintenance amount for the period from November, 1991 to November, 1992, separate applications Ought to have been filed for the recovery of amount falling due for subsequent period. Since no such application/applications were filed for recovery of the amount due, the order dated 16-9-94 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar was set aside and it was held that it was not possible for the petitioner to claim recovery of the maintenance amount for the period December, 1992 to February, 1994 in the present proceedings. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Sagar on 26-4-95 in Criminal Revision No. 126/94, present Criminal Revision No. 459/95 has been filed by the petitioners Nanhi Bai and 2 others before this Court.

30. When we delve on the facts of the present case we find that the controversy which has been raised by the husband in the present revision with respect to the period December, 1991 to February, 1994 is totally uncalled for and as a matter of fact when earlier the warrant was issued in the month of March, 1994 and the Magistrate on 8-3-1994 had held that it was not necessary for the wife to file an application every year and the recovery could be ordered of amount falling due during pendency of application and the Magistrate also took up the application under Section 125(4), Cr.PC in which allegation was made that the petitioner No. 1 was leading an adulterous life, could be looked into for the reason that such an application was moved and was dismissed earlier, against which Cr. Revision No. 41/94 was filed, partial stay was granted as mentioned above. Ultimately on 19-7-94 enquiry was directed to be made into the allegation made by the husband against the wife of leading an adulterous life and having conceived pregnancy from someone else, but, at the same time, since the application was moved on 7-3-94, it was held that the husband was liable to pay amount upto 1994 and this order dated 19-7-94 passed in Cr. Revision No. 41/94 undisputedly had attained finality, and was not challenged by the husband. It passes comprehension that the husband in spite of the order passed in favour of the wife, did not pay the amount for the said period and in order to get rid of the Court order passed in revision filed by him, deliberately filed an application on 28-8-95 which was rightly dismissed by the Magistrate. Matter stood concluded with respect to period December, 1992 to February, 1994 in Cr. Revision No. 41/94. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge has committed error of law in overlooking its previous order while coming to the conclusion that the amount for the period December, 1992 to February, 1994 could not be recovered.

31. Yet another fact is writ large that in the pending recovery proceeding which was filed for the period November, 1991 to November, 1992 before the Magistrate, the husband had filed an application on 7-3-1994 under Section 125(4) of the Cr.PC and the said application was dismissed by the Magistrate on 8-3-1994, against which Cr. Revision No. 41/94 was preferred which was decided on 19-7-94 as mentioned above. In the said revision, it was held that the future maintenance shall remain stayed till the allegation made by the husband is enquired into by the Court and this application has not been decided on merits so far and the future maintenance from March, 1994 onwards has remained stayed in view of the order passed in Cr. Revision No. 41/94 dated 19-7-94. The last order-sheet of the case is dated 16-8-95 which shows that the case was fixed for evidence on 29-12-95 and thereafter it appears that the record was called in present revision. Hence, no further proceedings have taken place and the application of the husband filed under Section 125(4), Cr.PC has still to be decided by the Magistrate and the future maintenance amount has been stayed. It is really painful that the minor children also along with wife have been deprived for so long of the amount of maintenance which is otherwise payable to them. The provision under Section 125(4), Cr.PC disentitles only the wife if she is leading an adulterous life. However, husband respondent cannot escape his liability of maintaining two minor children -Sunita and Santosh of paying maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month to each of them simply by the fact that the application filed by him against the wife making allegation of adultery and conceiving pregnancy from someone else has still to be decided. The stay of the future maintenance has to be restricted with respect to wife only, not to the two petitioners namely Sunita and Santosh and respondent must forthwith pay the amount to them.

32. When there is stay already for the recovery from March, 1994 onwards, and application under Section 125(4), Cr.PC is being enquired into, there is no question of repeating the application after the application by the wife and the amount of arrears upto this date and the amount which may fall due in future cannot be said to be barred by limitation as the wife is not required to repeat the application, once she has set the machinery in motion and Court has stayed the recovery to enquire into allegation made by respondent under Section 125(4), Cr.PC.