Smt. Premvati vs Ramlakhan Sagar on 27 June, 2017

-( 1 )-
Criminal Revision No.675/2016

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
Criminal Revision No.675/2016
Smt. Premvati Others
Versus
Ramlakhan Sagar
———————————————————————————–
Shri R.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned counsel for the
respondent.
———————————————————————————–
ORDER

(27.06.2017)
The applicants are aggrieved of the order dated
19.03.2016 passed in Criminal M.J.C.No.171/2014 by
the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior,
whereby, the application preferred by the applicant
No.1 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed,
however, the application to the extent relating to the
applicants No.2 and 3 has been dismissed.

2. The facts relevant for adjudication of the case in
short are that it is undisputed that on 08.03.1985 the
present applicant No.1 and the respondent got
married and the applicants No.2 and 3 are children
born out of their wedlock. Apparently, the dispute
arose between them on account of inability of
applicant No.1 to give birth to a male child due to
which in the month of June, 2007, the respondent
forced the applicant No.1 to leave his house alongwith

-( 2 )-

Criminal Revision No.675/2016

the applicants No.2 and 3, whereafter, she is residing
with her brother. Although it is difficult for all the
three applicants to maintain themselves and
considering the fact that they are approaching proper
age for marriage, there is urgent need of fund for
making arrangement for the same. Consequently, an
application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by
all the applicants against respondent. The present
respondent marked his presence before the Court,
however, subsequently, he did not appear before the
Court leading no option to the Court to proceed
ex-parte against him.

3. The present applicants produced her brother as
witness and also recorded the evidence in support of
the application. The learned court below after
examining the contents of the application as also the
evidence led by the present applicants and after
taking into consideration the fact that in the year 2008
both the parties entered into a settlement and it was
agreed between them that the respondent will part
with 50% of salary for the maintenance of the
applicant, however, later on he retracted back from
his commitment. The learned court below partly
allowed the application to the extent it related to
claim by the applicant No.1 and awarded maintenance
of Rs.5000/- per month. However, with respect to the
applicants No.2 and 3, learned court below recorded
the finding that as they have attained the age of
majority and therefore, they are not entitled for any
maintenance under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C..

READ  Ajoy Pal vs 7 Rubi Pal (Nee Kundu) on 11 May, 2017

-( 3 )-

Criminal Revision No.675/2016

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has putforth a
similar contentions with respect to legal position
about right of major children to seek maintenance
from the father. In this regard, the learned counsel
for the applicants has placed reliance on the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Jugtawat Vs.
Maju Lata Others, 2002 (5) SCC 422. By placing
reliance on this judgment, learned counsel for the
applicants submits that the finding recorded by the
court below is clearly unsustainable in the light of the
law laid down by the Supreme Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the Family Court in any case acceded its
jurisdiction by awarding maintenance in favour of the
applicant No.1 and such illegal act cannot be given
stamp approval and also no direction can be issued to
the respondent for bearing cost of maintenance of
applicants No.2 and 3 who are major in terms of age.

6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, I
am of the view that the Family Court erred in arriving
at a finding that the application for seeking
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is not
maintainable at the instance of the applicants No.2
and 3. In order to arrive at above opinion, this Court
has given consideration to law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Jagdish’s case (supra) and the
perusal of the same leaves no iota of doubt that the
application at the instance of the applicants No. 2 and
3 was maintainable for ground of maintenance as it is
born out from the record that the applicants No.2 and

READ  Preet Pal Singh vs State Of Delhi on 20 September, 2013

-( 4 )-

Criminal Revision No.675/2016

3 are not yet married. In order to fortify this
observation, it will be appropriate to reproduce the
relevant portion of case of Jagdish’s case (supra) :-

3. In view of the finding recorded and
the observations made by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court, the only
question that arises for consideration is
whether the order calls for interference. A
similar question came up for consideration
by this Court in the case of Noor Saba
Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim relating to the
claim of a Muslim divorced woman for
maintenance from her husband for herself
and her minor children. This Court while
accepting the position that
Section 125
Cr.P.C. does not fix liability of parents to
maintain children beyond attainment of
majority, read the said provision and
Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act
together and held that under the latter
statutory provision liability of providing
maintenance extends beyond attainment of
majority of a dependent girl.

4. Applying the principle to the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand, it is
manifest that the right of a minor girl for
maintenance from parents after attaining
majority till her marriage is recognized in
Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception
can be taken to the judgment/order passed
by the learned Single Judge for
maintaining the order passed by the Family
Court which is based on a combined
reading of
Section 125 Cr.P.C and Section
20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act. For the reasons
aforestated we are of the view that on facts
and in the circumstances of the case no
interference with the impugned
judgment/order of the High Court is called
for.

-( 5 )-

Criminal Revision No.675/2016

7. The ratio of the judgment mention hereinabove
is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case
and therefore, the present application is allowed and
order dated 19.03.2016 to the extent it relates to
rejection of the application moved by the applicants
No.2 and 3 is set-aside and the matter is remanded
back to the Family Court for taking decision about the
quantum of maintenance and entitlement of applicants
No.2 and 3 for lump sum amount for the purpose of
marriage. It is observed that this Court has only
recorded its opinion with respect to maintainability of
the application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. at the
instance of major children/daughter and have not
ventured into the merits of the case in relation to the
quantum of maintenance which was to be decided by
the court below by exercising its own wisdom. Before
parting, it is also observed that there is a case for
rejecting the present application and directing the
applicant to take resource to the remedy available
under Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act,
however, considering the fact that in the application
moved before the Family Court the applicant reflected
urgency for payment of maintenance, therefore,
relegating the applicant to take remedy under
different statute would further delay the matter and
will result in multiplicity of the proceedings, therefore,
in the light of the exceptional circumstances the
present application has been allowed and the matter is
remanded back to the Family Court for fresh decision
to the extent of application preferred by the applicants

-( 6 )-

Criminal Revision No.675/2016

No.2 and 3.

8. It is also observed that the prayer made by the
applicant No.1 for enhancement of amount of
maintenance awarded by the Family Court is not
acceded to for the reason that in the opinion of the
Court Exp. P-2 which is salary slip of the respondent
reveals monthly salary Rs.12,700/- per month, the
quantum fixed by the Family Court with respect to the
applicant No.1 i.e. Rs.5000/- per month is just and
proper and does not suffer from any illegality.

9. With these aforesaid discussions, the criminal
revision is partly allowed to the extent above.

(S.K.Awasthi)
Judge
AK/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *