HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on Apr 21,1998
KUNTIBAI W/O ALAKHRAM Appellant
ALAKHRAM S/O JAGGULAL
Bench: JUSTICE V.K. Agrawal
This focus Under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is destined opposite a sequence antiquated 29-1-1998, in Cr. Rev. No. 43/94, by 1st A.S.J., Durg, affirming a sequence antiquated 20-1-1994 in Cri. Case No. 72/93, by Judicial Magistrate First Class, refusing to extend upkeep to a petitioner/wife.
2. The petitioner/wife who was married to a non-applicant/husband about 30 years before to a filing of a focus had 4 daughters from him, purported that a non-applicant/husband has refused to say her for a final 12 years, and that she is incompetent to say herself, as she is a labourer. It was purported by her that a non-applicant/husband had grown unlawful family with another woman, on comment of which, he started misbehaving and torturing a petitioner/wife and incited her out from his home.
3. The schooled Judicial Magistrate First Class before whom focus Under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code was filed, has found that there was no justification for a petitioner/wife to live alone from a non-applicant/husband, and that a non-applicant/husband has no means to say a petitioner/wife. It was serve hold that a petitioner/wife had sufficient means to say herself, accordingly her petition for extend of upkeep was dismissed.
4. In revision, a schooled Addl. Sessions Judge found that a focus was inordinately behind and had been filed after about 12 years after she started vital alone from a non-applicant/husband. The commentary of a reduce justice that there was no justification for a petitioner/wife to live alone from a non-applicant/husband, were also reliable by a schooled Addl. Sessions Judge. It has also been hold that a non-applicant/husband did not marry another woman, compartment a petitioner/wife was vital with him as his mother and his second matrimony with another lady took place after 4-5 years after a petitioner/wife had left him but any justification. In perspective of above, it was hold that there was no consequence in a rider and it was accordingly dismissed.
5. Learned warn for a petitioner/wife has urged that no duration of reduction is prescribed for filing an focus for maintenance, and therefore, her petition could not have been discharged on that ground. He has placed faith on Ambaram v. Jankibai, 1991 (II) MPWN 121 and on Golla Seetharamulu v. Golla Rathanamma, 1991 Cr.LJ. 1533
6. It might be beheld in a present box that a petition for upkeep was filed after a duration of about 12 years, after a purported refusal or slight by a non-applicant/husband to say a wife. No reason whatsoever has been offering by a petitioner/wife for a lavish check as above, in filing a focus for maintenance.
7. In Bhaggo Bai v. State of M.P., 1984 MPWN Note 504 it was celebrated by this Court that a pill Under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code is dictated to be rapid pill for a insurance of a forlorn mother or a neglected child from starvation, while a polite guilt of a father or a father to say his child or mother has to be dynamic by a Civil Court in suitability with a personal law germane to a parties. The functions of a Magistrate and a Civil Court are clearly different. The Magistrate has to understanding with a puncture while a Civil Court is to make despotic authorised rights according to personal law of a parties. A wife, who files an focus after progressing herself for 10 or 15 years, positively is not entitled to get service underneath a puncture supplies of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The powers vested in a Magistrate Under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code are discretionary. If there is lavish check in filing an focus Under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, by a wife, but there being any reasoning reason or reason for a delay; a Magistrate in a prudent practice of discretion, would be entirely fit in dismissing a focus Under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code.
8. In Ambaram’s box (supra) relied on by a schooled warn for petitioner/wife, a mother had after a duration of 12 years of alone staying again started to live with a father and had also recognised from him. Thereafter, due to slight of father again, a mother was compelled to cite an focus for extend of maintenance. It was hold in these resources that it can't be pronounced that a petition was filed belatedly by her, and accordingly a mother could not be faulted with therefor.
9. Learned warn for a petitioner/wife has relied on a preference of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Golla Seetharamulu v. Golla Rathanamma and Anr., 1991 Cr.LJ. 1533. In that case, it has been celebrated that for claiming upkeep Under Section 125 of a Criminal Procedure Code, no duration of reduction is provided. That being so, a postulant father was not entitled to beg that a mother had waived her right to explain upkeep due to a prolonged relapse of 10 or 12 years, after she left a matrimonial house. It was serve celebrated that due to a altered resources in her parents’ house, as her relatives were no longer peaceful to say her further, as other children of a domicile had grown adult and also as some other problems had crept adult in a family, mother was entitled to explain maintenance. However, in a present case, no such altered resources and no justification for lavish check in filing a focus for maintenance, has been pleaded or proved. Therefore, a above regard done in a rare resources of that box by a Andhra Pradesh High Court would not be of any assistance to a petitioner’s case.
10. Besides a prolonged check in filing a focus it has been found by a Courts next that a petitioner/wife had no justification for vital alone from her father and that she had sufficient means to say herself as she had resources by approach of cultivation income that was sufficient to accommodate her needs. Thus, a above contribution and resources clearly disastrous her explain to find maintenance.
14. Therefore, a option exercised by a Courts next in rejecting a focus of a petitioner/wife for a extend of maintenance, in a resources of a case, can't be termed as capricious or manifestly unjust. There appears to be no reason for division in a impugned order, as no resources of well-developed inlet exist job for a practice of fundamental powers of this Court Under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, a petition has no consequence and a same is dismissed.