Pappulal @ Hanuman S/o Parasram Jaat vs State of M.P.

Being aggrieved by the order granting maintenance in favour of non-applicant @ Rs.2,000/- per month by the JMFC, Khargone in criminal case

No.4/2010 vide order dated 12/04/2013 which has been confirmed vide order dated 12/04/2013 in criminal revision No.83/2013 passed by III

ASJ, Khargone, the applicant has come before this Court to invoke the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is extra ordinary in nature and it is settled proposition of law that this power has to be exercised

springily and only in the case where attaining facts and circumstances satisfy that possibilities of miscarriage of justice will arise in case of non-use

of power. The Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts in such exceptional cases where it appears that the orders if not

corrected would be great injustice to someone, where in passing the order, the Court is capricious and arbitrary or where order passed by learned

Courts below have been based on no evidence or material at all available on record or order has been passed on such evidence or material which

is wholly irrelevant or arbitrary or where the orders suffers from fundamental legal defects or where the evidence produced in support of the claim,

if taken at their face value makes out absolutely no case or where the orders are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which, no

prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the opponent.

Considering all the materials produced by the parties and available on record on these parameters I do not find any concrete/tangible ground to

interfere with the concurrent finding of both the Courts below.

The only ground which applicant emphatically urged is that the non-applicant has come before the Court with the prayer of maintenance after 34

years of the separation and also when she was capable of maintaining herself by working as ""Aangan Wadi Karyakarta"". To support his prayer the

applicant has placed reliance on Kuntibai vs. Alakhram 1998 (2) MPLJ 635 and Bhaggo Bai vs. State of M.P. 1984 MPWN (504) where

maintenance was disallowed on the ground of delay coupled with attaining facts and circumstances of the case.

In first judgment besides long delay in filing the application, it was found that the wife had no justification for living separately and had sufficient

means to maintain herself and husband had no means to maintain her and in second case, it was found that the wife did not disclose any emergency

in the case for exercise the discretionary power by Magistrate under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. But the factual situations of both the judgements cited

above are not similar to the present case. In the present case though on the face it appears that inordinate delay in filing the application is there but

the wife has mentioned in the petition itself that earlier her parents maintaining her, later they died and her only brother also died and she did not

receive any share from the property or income whatsoever of her parents and she is not keeping well on account of age also. Keeping in view all

these vital aspects, facts of the case, fact noticed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in respect of daughter of the petitioner, health condition of the

non-applicant/wife so also the fact that applicant is priest (Pujari) of a Temple with which agricultural land is attached, there appears no reason for

interference in the impugned order, as no circumstance of exceptional nature exists calling for the exercise of inherent powers of this Court under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., therefore, the petition has no merit and the same is dismissed hereby.