Shadi Lal And Anr vs Kanta Devi

Petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C) for quashing order dated 05.11.2016 passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda in file No. 30/488 Cr.P.C titled as Kanta Devi vs. Shadi Lal and ors., and order dated 16.09.2017 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Doda in file No. 67/Revision titled as Kanta Devi vs. Shadi Lal and ors.

The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 is the son of respondent. It is stated that marriage of petitioner no.1 and respondent was solemnized 50 years back and after the marriage the petitioner no.1 and respondent remained together for 30 years and out of their wedlock five children were born, out of which two are sons and three are daughters. It is further submitted that during the period of separation the respondent stayed with her sons including petitioner no.2 and daughters, and they were maintaining the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner no.1 and respondent were separated from each other by mutual consent. It is stated that respondent despite being maintained by the sons, she filed an application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda against the petitioners and one Rishi Kumar (Dead now). The said application was allowed vide order dated 05.11.2016, impugned in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the trial court by virtue of above said order dated 05.11.2016, directed the petitioners to pay Rs.1,500/- each per month to the respondent.

Operative part of the order dated 05.11.2016, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doda reads as under:-

"Thus keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and age of the petitioner and respondent No.1, I deem it proper to allow the petition and grant the maintenance of Rs.3000/- minus the amount already granted in the interim order dated 11-06-2015 and respondent Nos.2 & 3 will pay an amount of Rs.1,500/ each to the petitioner minus the amount already granted vide order dated 11-06-2015. The petition is accordingly decided in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents/non-applicants. Application stand disposed of and file be consigned to record after due completion."

Respondent being not satisfied with the above said order dated 05.11.2016 preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda for enhancement of maintenance. The said revision was allowed by the Addl. Sessions, Judge, Doda vide order dated 16.09.2017, thereby directing the petitioner no.1 to pay Rs. 6000/- per month and petitioner No.2 was directed to pay Rs. 3000/-per month to the respondent, totalling Rs. 9000/- per month.

The operative part of the order dated 16.09.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda reads as under:-

"Keeping in view the facts of the case and law of the land, the maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner deems to the lower side. It is a settled law that the maintenance has to be granted according to the status of the parties. If Status of the parties is good and sound one, the petitioner is also required to be given sufficient maintenance according to the status of the respondents. As per the pension certificate of respondent No:1placed on the file it reveals that respondent No:1 is drawing monthly pension of Rs.18054/- and it would not be on higher side if Rs. 6000/- is granted in favor of the petitioner being an old lady and suffering from numerous ailments in the advanced age. Respondent No:3 will pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the petitioner also, totaling Rs. 9000/- per month.

Hence, in view of discussion made herein above, impugned order is modified and respondent No:1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 6000/ per month and respondent No:3 is directed to pay an amount of 3000/- per month, totaling Rs. 9000/- per month. This order will run from the date of application filed u/s 488Cr.P.C, however the amount already paid by the respondents to beset off from the maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner on monthly basis. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Revision petition is disposed off and file be consigned to records after due completion and court below file be sent back to learned Magistrate along with copy of this order."

Petitioners have challenged the above said impugned orders dated 05.11.2016 and 16.09.2017 on the grounds that application filed by the respondent was not maintained before the trial court, as the petitioner No.2 was maintaining the respondent; that the respondent is living separately from petitioner No.1 since more than 20 years and are still living separately; that proceedings launched under Section 488 Cr.P.C. was attended with mala fide intentions and the proceedings are maliciously instituted.

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.

From the perusal of the documents on record, it appears that respondent filed a petition under Section 488 Cr.P.C. on 30.06.2014 before the trial court. The trial court after inviting objections and conducting full trial came to the conclusion that respondent-Kanta Devi was entitled to maintenance as she was suffering from various ailments and was under constant medical treatment and medication. It has also been observed that respondent has no source of income and she is totally dependent upon the petitioners i.e., husband and son. The trial court further observed that petitioner No.1 is a retired Govt. employee and petitioner No.2 is also a Govt. employee. Petitioners were directed to pay an amount of Rs.1500/ each to the petitioner minus the amount already granted vide order dated 11-06-2015.

The respondent -Kanta Devi was not satisfied with the order of the trial court, so she filed a revision on 02.12.2016 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Doda. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Doda after considering the record and hearing the parties, allowed the revision and thereby enhanced the maintenance from Rs.3000/-to Rs. 6,000/- and Rs.1500/- to Rs. 3000/- per month.

It is worthwhile to mention here that one of the sons of the respondent, namely Rishi Kumar against whom the petition was filed, has died.

Admittedly respondent is now senior citizen, unable to maintain herself; senior citizen mother, who is unable to maintain herself, has a right to claim maintenance from husband and son in terms of section 488 Cr.PC. Children are under obligation to maintain his or her parents- father, mother or both. Such application for maintenance can be filed by the senior citizen or a parent himself, before concerned magistrate; mother gives birth to us, endure great pains to raise us, educate us and get us settled in our lives. It is a lot due to her love and efforts that we become great in our lives. When we have our own children, our parents then play an important role in giving good values to our children as well. Therefore, when our parents are old and cannot take care of themselves, it is our duty to pay back their love, effort and blessings by serving them and honoring them in every possible way, even at the cost of great personal sacrifice. Mother requires basic amenities like food, clothing, shelter and other necessary requirements in her old age. It is the moral duty of a husband and son to provide the above mentioned amenities to his wife or mother. Maintenance is the process of maintaining or preserving someone. While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provisions contained in Section 488 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 488 Cr.P.C. provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in this section are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in section 488 Cr.P.C. clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation; having regard to this social object the provisions of this Section of the Code have to be given a liberal construction to fulfill and achieve this intention of the Legislature. Consequently, to achieve this objective, mother can claim maintenance from her son; similarly wife can claim maintenance from her husband.

It is not the case of petitioners that they are earning nothing. There is categorically finding of courts below that petitioner no.1 is withdrawing Rs.18,054/- pm as pension and petitioner no.2 i.e. son is a govt. employee and has handsome salary.

In view of above discussion, this petition is dismissed.