Giyarsi Devi vs Sukh Ram

G.S. Chahal, J.

This order will dispose of Cr. M. 5574M/1990 and Cr. M. 1121M/1991, as these both arise out of the same litigation and the same summoning orders passed by the Magistrate are under challenge. As such, they are being disposed of together.

The facts are being drawn from the present case, which, in brief, are :

3A. Smt. Giyarsi Devi, petitioners 1 is the wife of Sukh Ram respondent and Rajinder Kumar petitioner2 is their minor son. Marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 1979. They had lived together for about 5 years and then the minor son was born out of their wedlock. Their relations became strained and as alleged by her, her husband was an addict to drinking and also a greedy person. Soon after the marriage, he had started maltreating her and making a demand for Rs. 25,000/. She was unable to fulfil that demand and on that account, he started giving her beating. About 2 years prior to her filing an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she was turned out of his house. Thereafter he made no efforts to take her back to his house. Her husband had a monthly income of Rs. 7,000/.

In reply, the respondenthusband admitted the factum of marriage and the birth of the child, but denied the other allegations of the petitioner. He claimed that the petitioner had left his house on the pretext of meeting her parents and thereafter did not return. In fact, she wanted to live separately from the joint family.

The learned Magistrate found that the petitioner was not entitled to maintenance, while the minorchild was so entitled. As such, her application was dismissed, while that of the minorpetitioner was allowed. The respondentfather was ordered to pay Rs. 250/ p.m. as maintenance to the minorson. Having not felt satisfied with the order of the Magistrate, the petitioner preferred a revision that was dismissed by Sh. K. S. Kauldhar, Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 20.1.1990. In these criminal miscellaneous petitions, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is being challenged.

The petitioner has gone in revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge and as such, no second revision on her behalf is competent. This view finds support from Charanjit Singh v. Gursharan Kaur, 1990(2) Recent CR 584 herein it was held by a DB of this Court that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised very sparingly. This Court applies limitations and interference will be made only if a special case is made out. The Courts below have assessed the evidence and correctly reached the conclusion that petitioner1 was not entitled to claim separate maintenance. No special case is made out for interference in the impugned orders qua her.

Minor petitioners2, even if being kept away wrongly by petitioner has to be maintained by the respondent. The Provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C. were brought in the statute in order to save a minorchild and the deserted wife from vagrancy. The amount of maintenance is to be awarded, keeping in view the status of the family and needs of the child. Raj Kumar is a minor child and he will be needing all the necessities of life, e.g. food, clothing and schooling etc. These facts should have been taken into account by the Courts below while fixing maintenance qua him. The learned Additional Session Judge has discussed in paragraph 7 of his judgment and assessed from the evidence that the respondent must be having a monthly income of Rs. 7,000/ to Rs. 8,000/ as claimed by petitioner1. It is not shown that respondent has some other liability and in this view of the matter there must be a proper maintenance amount for the minor child so that he may be brought up properly by the mother and may not become a victim of the disruption the of marital life of the parents.

I hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous and direct the respondentfather to pay maintenance to the minor petitioner2 at the rate of Rs. 400/ p.m. with effect from today. For the previous period, he would pay the maintenance amount as assessed by the Courts below. There is no merit in the other criminal miscellaneous and the same is hereby dismissed.

Misc. dismissed.