Ranjit Singh vs Sarabjit Kaur

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of order dated 20.4.2011 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 14.5.2012 (Annexurfe P-4), whereby interim maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month was allowed to the respondent. Respondent Sarabjit Kaur had filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance.

The case of the respondent was that she was married to the petitioner on 25.1.2001. Thereafter, they were blessed with two children and they were presently residing with the petitioner. Petitioner had given severe beatings to the respondent and had demanded more dowry from her. Respondent had no source of income to maintain herself.

The petitioner, in his reply, stated that the respondent was 2 not of good character and had developed relations with Balwinder Singh.

Vide order dated 20.4.2011 (Annexure P-3), trial Court allowed Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition and the same was dismissed by the court of revision vide order dated 14.5.2012 (Annexure P-4). Hence, the present petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside as the respondent was living in adultery and in this situation as per Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. she was not entitled to receive maintenance.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

The petitioner had filed a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said petition was allowed in ex parte vide judgment/ decree dated 6.10.2010 (Annexure P-2). Admittedly, the respondent has moved an application for setting aside the said ex parte judgment and decree and the said application is pending. Since the proceedings for setting aside the ex parte judgment, vide which the petitioner was granted ex parte decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, is pending, it would not be in the interest of justice to deny interim maintenance to the respondent-wife Sarabjit Kaur on the allegation that she was living in adultery. The petitioner is yet to establish the said allegation by leading his evidence.

Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. -(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.

Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated in the Code to provide speedy maintenance to the deserted wives, children and parents and save them from vagrancy. The said provision has social object to achieve. The amount of interim maintenance allowed by the Courts below cannot be said to be in the higher side in these days of high prices. Moreover, the amount has been allowed only by way of interim arrangement.

It is a settled proposition of law that the petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of his revision by the Sessions Court as it would amount to a second revision. However, in a case of grave injustice, this Court can interfere u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

In the present case, no grave miscarriage of justice has occurred which would warrant interference by this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.