Krishan Kumar vs Smt. Gayatri Devi and Kiran Kumar minor through his mother and natural guardian Smt. Gayatri Devi

Viney Mittal, J.—Gayatri Devi along with Kiran Kumar her minor son has filed a petition u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code) against Krishan Kumar (the present petitioner) claiming maintenance. A prayer for interim maintenance was made by the aforesaid applicants before the learned trial Magistrate. Vide order dated May 20, 1992, an amount of Rs. 400/- as interim maintenance was fixed for applicant No. 2 Kiran Kumar but it was held by the learned trial Magistrate that no interim maintenance could be granted to a divorced wife. Accordingly, the interim maintenance to Smt. Gayatri Devi was declined.

Two separate revision petitions were filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. One revision petition was filed by Krishan Kumar, the present petitioner challenging the grant of interim maintenance to Kiran Kumar the minor son. A separate revision petition was filed by Gayatri Devi, the divorced wife of Krishan Kumar challenging the order of learned Sub Division Judicial Magistrate, Hansi whereby the prayer of interim maintenance to her has been declined.

Both the aforesaid revision petitions were allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the revision petition filed by Krishan Kumar challenging the order of maintenance granted to Kiran Kumar it was held by learned Additional Sessions Judge that the original amount claimed by Kiran Kumar was Rs. 250/- per month and the amount of Rs. 400/- granted to him by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate was beyond the claim made and, therefore, was unsustainable.

With regard to revision petition filed by the petitioner, it was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Gayatri Devi was entitled to maintenance for her subsistence even though she was a divorced wife. In the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby the claim for interim maintenance made by the divorced wife has been upheld.

I have heard Shri Rajesh Garg and Ms. Sunit Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and with their assistance gone through the record of the case.

In my considered opinion, no fault can be found with the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the order of learned trial Magistrate has been set aside. Merely because the respondent had been divorced by the petitioner was no ground to decline her maintenance under the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The purpose of the aforesaid provision is merely to provide subsistence to a person who is not able to maintain herself. Nothing has been shown to me that the respondent-wife possesses such means which could provide her subsistence.

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.