Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 959 of 2010 Revisionist :- Rama Kant Opposite Party :- Smt. Saroj & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- S.K. Kulshrestha Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1. None is present on behalf of revisionist. Heard learned AGA for the State. Perused the record. The revision is being decided on merit.
2. This application has been preferred by Rama Kant against Smt. Saroj and State of U.P. challenging order dated 5.12.2009 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.12 of 2009(Smt. Saroj vs. Rama Kant), whereby application of Smt. Saroj was allowed partly and husband revisionist was directed to pay Rs.1000/- per month to her as maintenance with effect from 31.1.2006.
3. Ground taken in memo of revision is that opposite party No.1 herself deserted the revisionist under influence of her mother and brother to accept money from the revisionist. Revisionist offered to keep her wife with him on 28.10.2005 but she refused to come and live with him. Hence, impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.
4. Learned AGA submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in this revision.
5. From perusal of record, it transpires that plea taken by the revisionist before the lower Court was that his wife was living in 'Maika' on her own free will, amount of maintenance was excessive and the marriage was admitted. Opposite party No.1 Smt. Saroj was examined as P.W.-1 and produced four documents 21/1-4 of Khatauni in support of her averment. Revisionist Rama Kant got himself examined as D W.-1 and Tulsi Ram as D.W.-2. The Trial Court after hearing both parties and examining evidence on record, passed impugned order. This Court is of the opinion that amount of maintenance is not excessive and the view taken by the Court below is plausible view.
6. Moreover, proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary proceeding. Order does not determine rights of parties as it was held by the Apex Court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another, AIR 1999 SC 3348, wherein following has been observed:-
"It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents. For the purpose of getting his rights determined, the appellant has also filed a Civil Suit, which is pending before the trial court. In such a situation, this Court in S. Sethurathinam Pillai v. Barbara alias Dolly Sethurthinam, {1971 (3) SCC 923} observed that maintenance under Section 488 Cr.P.C., 1898 (Similar to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusion for grant of maintenance could be reached. It was held that order passed under Section 488 is a summary order which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties; the decision of the criminal court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not operate as decisive in any civil proceeding between the parties."
7. In the case of Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others, (AIR 1978 SC 1807) Krishna Iyer, J dealing with interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. observed (at Para 9) thus:-
"This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause of the derelicts."
8. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice on this point. It is also pertinent to mention here that intention of legislature also shows that this provision is measure of social justice because initially amount of maintenance was fixed to Rs.500/- per month. Subsequently, it was enhanced upto Rs.5000/- per month and later on these words have been deleted and present position is that there is no financial limit for maintenance under this section.
9. In my opinion even if there is a valid decree of divorce, still the wife is entitled to maintenance till she gets remarried and becomes the wife of another person, if she qualifies all other aspects of Section 125 Cr.P.C. because explanation (b) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. specifically says that wife includes a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried.
10. The revision is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
11. Copy of this order be transmitted to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 P.P.