Vikram Yadav vs Smt. Rajni Bala

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The contour of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, the petition for maintenance, u/s 125 Cr. PC filed, on 6.8.2007, by respondent-wife Rajni Bala was accepted and the petitioner-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month to her as maintenance allowance, vide order dated 20.1.2010. The petitioner-husband did not make the payment of maintenance allowance, which necessitated the respondent-wife to file the execution petition on 13.5.2010. Notice of the execution petition was issued, but the petitioner-husband failed to appear in the Court despite service. Thereafter, he was produced in the Court, in pursuance of the conditional warrant. Still, he flatly refused to make the payment of maintenance allowance. Consequently, he was sent to imprisonment for a period of one month. The application for releasing him from the custody was dismissed by the District Judge, Family Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 18.9.2010.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-husband filed the present revision petition to challenge the impugned order, invoking the provisions of section 401 Cr. PC.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this respect.

Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has no source of income, so, the Judge, Family Court committed a legal mistake in passing the impugned order, lacks merit.

As is evident from the record that the respondent-wife has filed a petition for maintenance allowance u/s 125 Cr. PC on 6.8.2007. The same was allowed and the petitioner-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month to her, by means of order dated 20.1.2010. He flatly refused to make the payment. Consequently, he was sent to imprisonment for a period of one month. Again, he did not make the payment and respondent-wife has moved another execution petition to recover the maintenance allowance. The application to release the petitioner-husband was dismissed by the District Judge, Family Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 18.9.2010, the operative part of which is as under:-

As the respondent has not made the payment of even a single penny and as he himself had stated before the court that he is unable to pay the maintenance amount to the petitioner-wife, he in view of the law in Ramakrishan T.K. Versus C.N. Subhadra and another, 2009(2) RCR (Cri.) 791, Kerala High Court and Narayanan @ Kuttani Versus State of Kerala, 2008 (2) RCR (Cri.) 317, and also in view of decision of our Hon''ble High Court in State of Punjab Versus Jaswant Singh 1994 Crl. L.J. NOC 394 (P & H), can be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a total period of default. The total period of default is 33 months. The respondent has already remained in custody for a period of one month. Therefore, while rejecting the application moved on behalf of the respondent he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of remaining 32 months from today. The execution petition filed by the petitioner Wife is ordered to be filed. However, it is made clear that in case the respondent clears the arrears of maintenance allowance as has been claimed by the petitioner-wife in this petition at a sooner date then the respondent shall be released forthwith. Execution petition be filed.

Meaning thereby, as the petitioner-husband did not make a single penny of maintenance allowance to his wife, therefore, the District Judge, Family Court has recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such impugned order containing valid reasons cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the exercise of limited jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr. PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such.