Mahavir vs Smt. Rajeshwari

M.M. Gupta, J.—This is an application moved u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure by one Mahavir for quashing the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate Nawabganj Kanpur dated 30th October, 1979 granting maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month to the opposite party who is the wife of the applicant. The order was modified by the Additional Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 194/M of 1979 and the maintenance was reduced to Rs. 75/-.

The two grounds on which the impugned orders have been attacked are that the applicant had no sufficient means on the basis of which the maintenance could have been granted as he had no income of his own. The property was owned by his father. The maintenance, therefore, cannot be granted. It was also attacked on the ground that it has not been established that the opposite party was unable to maintain herself.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Counsel for the opposite party. The words used in Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure are "if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain (a) his wife unable to maintain herself or" The first question that is to be determined is whether the applicant had the sufficient means and did not maintain his wife. The learned Sessions Judge has clearly observed that the applicant had himself claimed that he had advanced a sum of Rs. 3000/- to the opposite party''s mother and brother on different occasions. This shows that if a person could advance such a huge sum to the relatives of the opposite party it clearly means that ha had sufficient mains to maintain his wife apart from the fact that his father owned considerable agricultural property. So far as the question of the opposite party''s inability to maintain herself is concerned the only fact that has been established in this case is that the opposite party was helping her widowed mother in washing the clothes of others and sue earned some petty amounts which is enabled her to sustain her in life. This does not mean that she was able to maintain herself. On such facts I do not think that this case warrants exercise of inherent powers of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the impugned orders. The application is dismissed.