AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.126/2016, by which the application filed by the petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance was rejected.
Both the parties are present in person.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2-husband has deserted the petitioners. The learned court below has wrongly arrived at finding that the petitioner-wife is not residing with the respondent on her own will. It is further submitted that the petitioner-wife is an illiterate lady having no independent source of income, whereas, the respondent-husband is doing the labour work and earning Rs.500/- per day. Therefore, learned Family Court should have granted adequate maintenance allowance to the petitioners.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that husband is merely a labourer and he has to look after his old mother. He further submits that though he is ready to cohabit with the petitioners but after conciliation, it seems that it is not possible for them to reside together. The order passed by the learned Family court is absolutely legal and does not call for any interference.
I have considered the rival arguments so also carefully scanned the entire record.
Section 125 of the Code makes provision for the grant of maintenance to wives, children and parents. Sub-section (1) of Section 125 inter alia says that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain 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. Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:
"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents, -
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.
A holistic reading of the provisions would clearly reveal that the responsibility and liability of a person to maintain his wife, children and parents rests on the condition that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain them (wife, children, parents), he can be ordered to make a monthly allowance for maintenance of his wife or child or parents at such monthly rate. In the instant case, the petitioner No.2-Prakash has attained the age of majority, hence, he is not entitled to get any maintenance and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner No.1- Smt. Sunita (wife) was rightly not awarded any compensation, therefore, the impugned order dated 05.07.2017 is not interfered to that extent. The trial court has not assigned any reason for not granting maintenance to the petitioner nos.3 & 4. Hence, looking to the present scenario, since the petitioner No.3 Chandan and petitioner No.4 Jagdish are minor children, it is ordered that respondent No.2 will regularly pay a maintenance amount of Rs.1000/- per month to the petitioners No.3 & 4 from today till they attain majority.
The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. Stay application also stands disposed of. Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.