R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1507 OF 2013 BETWEEN :
RAVI S/O LAXMANA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O KARAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDAMAGGE HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT 573 201 ..PETITIONER (BY SRI H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT.LALITHA W/O RAVI, AGED ABOUT 34 YRS 2. ARPITA D/O RAVI, AGED ABOUT 15 YRS 3. AMBIKA AGED ABOUT 10 YRS RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REP BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, THE FIRST RESPONDENT ALL ARE RESIDENT OF HINDALA HALLI VILLAGE, MYSORE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT 573 201. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.P.SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADV. ABSENT.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED THEREIN ON 01.10.2012 PASSED BY THE FTC-II, HASSAN (C/C FTC, AT HOLENARASIPURA IN CRL.R.P.NO.60/2012.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2012 passed by the Fast Track Court and learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.60/2012 whereby the order dated 07.03.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura in Crl.Misc.No.314/2010 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.750/- each to respondents No.2 and 3 from the date of petition till life time of the petitioner and till the marriage of respondents No.2 and 3.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondents is absent. Perused the records.
3. There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. Petitioner herein is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No.1 filed Crl.Misc.Petition No.314/2010 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and for respondents No.2 and 3 on the ground that since 2006 petitioner herein neglected to look after and maintain the respondents in spite of possessing sufficient means.
4. Before the trial Court, respondent No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and produced the certified copy of the order passed in MVC No.216/2008. In rebuttal, petitioner examined himself as RW.1 and produced Assessment Register as at Ex.R.1.
5. Considering the above material, learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed by respondents holding that the respondents failed to establish that the petitioner neglected to lookafter and maintain the respondents. Learned Magistrate was also of the opinion that respondents have failed to prove the means and capacity of the petitioner to pay the maintenance claimed by them.
6. Revisional Court however by the impugned order dated 01.10.2012 has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance to respondents as stated above.
7. It is relevant to note that the Revisional Court has reiterated the finding of the learned Magistrate in para No.13 of the judgment and has observed as under:
“No doubt that 1st petitioner is an unemployee and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the minor girls and studying in 5th and 6th standard looked by the petitioner No.1 herself. But where is the money and from what source she has to maintain is the question before the Court for consideration when victim/such persons approached the Court of law for the reliefs, for that no answer by the respondent side. But their strong defence is that personally the respondent is a handicap due to the accidental injuries, he lost his left leg. But the law says that if the husband is capable to earn anything, even he may be a monk or saint or even beggar also, has to look after his wife and children out of his income. Under these circumstances, admittedly the respondent has received a compensation of Rs.9 lakhs and odd, out of which 50% is already deposited in the Court, out of that he has already received some portion, but he has not remembered his wife and children at that time. This aspect and the conduct of the respondent to be considered. The circumstances of taking the defence as such clearly shows that he is not ready to pay anything to his own wife and children whatever manner.“ 8. From the above findings, it stands established that petitioner was unemployed as on the date of making the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C and by then he had met with an accident resulting in amputation of his right leg. Under the said circumstances, the reasoning assigned by the Revisional Court that even if the husband is incapable of earning anything, he may be monk or saint, has to look after his wife and children, is patently flawed and cannot be accepted.
9. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. casts obligation on a person to maintain his wife, children, father or mother provided he is having sufficient means. The section opens with the expression “If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain…”. The word “sufficient means” does not signify only means such as property or definite employment, rather it is the means to support his wife and children. If the person has means of earning or capacity to earn his living, the same may be considered as “sufficient means” within the meaning of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
10. In the case on hand, the facts narrated above clearly disclose that the petitioner was without any means either by way of immovable property or even capacity to earn his living, except the compensation awarded to him by the MACT. The findings recorded by the Courts below clearly indicate that on account of amputation of his right leg, he was not in a position to earn his livelihood and was dependent on the compensation awarded by the MACT. Under the said circumstances, immediate question that arises for consideration is whether the law casts any obligation on a person to provide maintenance to his wife and children out of the compensation awarded by the MACT for the permanent disability suffered by him?
11. Undisputedly, compensation awarded to the petitioner is in the nature of damages awarded to the victim of an accident as recompense for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and permanent disability. It cannot be equated with the compensation awarded for the loss of estate or compensation for compulsory acquisition of properties which could be shared by him with the other legitimate dependents.
12. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. cannot be construed to mean that it casts an obligation on the person to pay maintenance to his wife and children out of the compensation awarded to him for the disability suffered in a motor accident. Such construction would be contrary to the very intendment of Section which specifically lays down that “If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife and other dependents…”. Though Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution, it cannot be interpreted to mean that even at the cost of one’s livelihood, he should maintain his dependents. A person without any means to fend himself cannot be obligated under law to fend his wife and children however impecunious their life situation may be. When the evidence on record disclose that the petitioner himself is infirm and invalid, it would be travesty of justice to ask him to maintain his wife and children out of the compensation awarded to him towards loss of his earning capacity and permanent disability suffered by him. The material on record discloses that as compared to the petitioner, respondent No.1 is possessed of better means and capacity to look-after and maintain herself. Both the Courts below have recorded a clear finding that after the petitioner-husband met with an accident, respondent No.1 on her own accord started living with her parents. Respondent No.1 has failed to plead and prove that she has sufficient reasons to desert the petitioner. There is no material on record to show that petitioner herein refused or neglected to maintain the respondents earlier to the accident.
13. The facts and circumstances proved in evidence go to show that until the petitioner met with the accident, he was looking-after respondents and it is only after he was hospitalized, the respondents refused to live with him. Section 125(4) and (5) of Cr.P.C. disentitles the wife to receive allowance from her husband, if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reasons. Since respondent No.1 has failed to prove that she had justifiable reasons to leave the matrimonial home, in view of Section 125(4) and (5) of Cr.P.C., she is not entitled for maintenance from the petitioner.
14. Though the above provision does not disentitle the children viz., respondent Nos.2 and 3 from claiming allowance from the petitioner, yet, in the absence of any material to show that petitioner herein neglected to maintain and look-after the children, in my view, even respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not entitled to take recourse to Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The facts brought on record clearly disclose that only after part of the compensation amount was deposited in Court, respondents filed the above application seeking maintenance from the petitioner making out a grouse that they have been neglected by the petitioner. But, the circumstances brought on record indicate that after the petitioner met with an accident, all the respondents left the matrimonial home on their own accord. As a result, respondents having failed to prove the ingredients of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and having failed to substantiate the fact that the petitioner is possessed of sufficient means to pay the maintenance claimed by them and that he has neglected or refused to maintain them, I hold that the respondents are not entitled for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Under the said circumstances, the Revisional Court has committed serious error in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court.
13. As a result, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court, Holenarasipura in Crl.R.P.No.60/2012 is hereby set aside. The order dated 07.03.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura in Crl.Misc. No.314/2010 is confirmed.
Sd/- JUDGE AKC