Hon’ble High Court of Madras has rightly held that,
From Para 10,
Admittedly in the case on hand, the 1st respondent police failed to refer the matter to the concerned District Social Welfare Officer and get a report as to whether any dowry harassment is made by the petitioners. In the absence of the adherence to such Mandatory procedures, offences of Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be imputed.
Read for yourself. This is the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court which held that interim maintenance can be given in a Sec 125 CrPC case.
From Para 6,
6. In view of the foregoing it is the duty of the court to interpret the provisions in Chapter IX of the Code in such a way that the construction placed on them would not defeat the very object of the legislation. In the absence of any express prohibition, it is appropriate to construe the provisions in Chapter IX as conferring an implied power on the Magistrate to direct the person against whom an application is made under section 125 of the code to pay some reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the applicant pending final disposal of the application. It is quite common that applications made under section 125 of the code also take several months for being disposed of finally. In order to enjoy the fruits of the proceedings under Section 125, the applicant should be alive till the date of the final order and that the applicant can do in a large number of cases only if an order for payment of interim maintenance is passed by the court. Every court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all such powers as are necessary to make its orders effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim “ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest” (Where anything is conceded, there is conceded also anything without which the thing itself cannot exist). [Vide Earl Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law, 1959 Edn., p. 1797.] Whenever anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not authorised in express terms be also done then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Such a construction though it may not always be admissible in the present case however would advance the object of the legislation under consideration. A contrary view is likely to result in grave hardship to the applicant, who may have no means to subsist until the final order is passed. There is no room for the apprehension that the recognition of such implied power would lead to the passing of interim orders in a large number of cases where the liability to pay maintenance may not exist. It is quite possible that such contingency may arise in a few cases but the prejudice caused thereby to the person against whom it is made is minimal as it can be set right quickly after hearing both the parties. The Magistrate may, however, insist upon an affidavit being filed by or on behalf of the applicant concerned stating the grounds in support of the claim for interim maintenance to satisfy himself that there is a prima facie case for making such an order. Such an order may also be made in an appropriate case ex parte pending service of notice of the application subject to any modification or even an order of cancellation that may be passed after the respondent is heard. If a civil court can pass such interim orders on affidavits, there is no reason why a Magistrate should not rely on them for the purpose of issuing directions regarding payment of interim maintenance. The affidavit may be treated as supplying prima facie proof of the case of the applicant. If the allegations in the application or the affidavit are not true, it is always open to the person against whom such an order is made to show that the order is unsustainable. Having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a Magistrate under section 125 of the code, we feel that the said provision should be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication on the Magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom an application is made under it to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance subject to the other conditions referred to therein pending final disposal of the application. In taking this view we have also taken note of the provisions of Section 7(2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act 66 of 1984) passed recently by Parliament proposing to transfer the jurisdiction exercisable by Magistrates under section 125 of the code to the Family Courts constituted under the said Act.
Note: By way on an amendment to Cr.P.C. 1973 in 2001, the Parliament brought the following two Provisos.
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.
Citations: [1986 AIR SC 984], [1985 AWC SC 11 906], [1986 BOMLR 88 223], [1985 GLH 1184], [1985 MHLJ 976], [1986 PLJR 6], [1985 SCALE 2 697], [1985 SCC 4 337], [1985 SUPP SCR 3 615], [1985 SCC CRI 556], [1985 CRIMES SC 2 872], [1986 CRIMES SC 1 148], [1986 CRLJ SC 41], [1986 CAR 1], [1986 CRLR 1], [1985 BBCJ 160], [1986 MLJ CRI 1 12], [1985 DLT 28 437], [1985 MPLJ SC 662]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1194071/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac1fe4b014971140e17e
https://vlex.in/vid/special-leave-petition-civil-852326810
A division bench of Apex Court explained who is eligible to claim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and under what conditions.
From Para 7,
7. Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant case there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. It has to be established that the wife was unable to maintain herself. The appellant has placed material to show that the respondent wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of Section 125 CrPC. It has to be established that with the amount she earned the respondent wife was able to maintain herself.
Heart and soul of this judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court is in Para 8.
In an illustrative case where wife was surviving by begging, would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi (AIR 1975 SC 83) it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression “unable to maintain herself” does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Citations: [AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 530], [2007 AIR SCW 7416], [2008 CRI LJ (NOC) 186], [2008 CRI LJ (NOC) 2], [2008 (1) AIR JHAR R 664], [2008 (1) SRJ 29], [(2008) 1 MH LJ (CRI) 644], [(2008) 1 JCC 486 (SC)], [2008 (1) CALCRILR 416], [2008 (1) SCC(CRI) 356], [2008 (2) CRI RJ 401], [2008 ALL MR(CRI) 860], [2008 (2) SCC 316], [2007 (13) SCALE 402], [2007 (8) SUPREME 525], [(2008) 1 MPHT 13], [(2008) 64 ALLINDCAS 735 (CHH)], [(2008) 1 CGLJ 228], [(2008) 1 CHANDCRIC 27], [(2008) 1 DMC 22], [(2008) 1 CIVILCOURTC 233], [(2008) 2 GUJ LR 1159], [(2008) 1 HINDULR 130], [(2008) 2 JAB LJ 70], [(2008) 1 MADLW(CRI) 615], [(2008) 2 MAD LJ 481], [(2008) 1 MAD LJ(CRI) 1400], [(2008) 2 MARRILJ 605], [(2008) MATLR 775], [(2008) MATLR 165], [(2008) 39 OCR 383], [(2008) 1 PUN LR 263], [(2008) 1 RAJ LW 142], [(2008) 1 RECCRIR 163], [(2007) 4 CURCRIR 408], [(2008) 1 RECCIVR 136], [(2008) 2 ALLCRIR 1409], [(2008) 3 CGLJ 473], [(2008) 1 CAL LJ 166], [(2008) 1 ALLCRILR 342], [(2008) 105 CUT LT 729], [(2007) 3 JCC 2446 (DEL)], [(2008) 1 KER LT 41], [(2008) 1 RAJ CRI C 35], [2008 CRILR(SC&MP) 1], [(2008) 1 CRILR(RAJ) 1], [2008 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 1], [2008 (1) ALD(CRL) 97], [2008 (1) ANDHLT(CRI) 131 SC], [2007 INSC 1190]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1720873/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae55e4b01497114137ad
https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=007002893100&title=chaturbhuj-vs-sita-bai
https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/landmark-judgement-chaturbhuj-v-s-sita-bai-2008
Index Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is here.
Landmark judgment from Apex Court here around the Sec 125 CrPC and few more details.
From Para 16,
Bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 125 leaves no room for doubt that if any person having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself or his legitimate (or illegitimate) child (children) unable to maintain itself (themselves), or his father, or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Court, upon proof of negligence or refusal, order such person to pay maintenance to his wife or child (children) or parents, as the case may be. It is also clear that maximum amount which could be ordered to be paid was Rs.500/- p.m. which was clear from the expression “not exceeding Rs.500/- in the whole”.
From Para 18,
By the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 50 of 2001), subsections (1) and (2) came to be amended with effect from September 24, 2001. The amended sub-sections now read thus:
…..
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 or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
How the interim maintenance’ came to be about?
So far as ‘interim’ maintenance is concerned, it is true that Section 125 of the Code as it originally enacted did not expressly empower the Magistrate to make such order and direct payment of interim maintenance. But the Code equally did not prohibit the Magistrate from making such order. Now, having regard to the nature of proceedings, the primary object to secure relief to deserted and destitute wives, discarded and neglected children and disabled and helpless parents and to ensure that no wife, child or parent is left beggared and destitute on the scrap-heap of society so as to be tempted to commit crime or to tempt others to commit crime in regard to them, it was held that the Magistrate had ‘implied power’ to make such order. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Chapter IX (Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents) is not strictly criminal in nature. Moreover, the remedy provided by Section 125 of the Code is a summary remedy for securing reasonable sum by way of maintenance subject to a decree passed by a competent civil Court. Hence, in absence of any express bar or prohibition, Section 125 could be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication to make interim order of maintenance subject to final outcome in the application.
Golden Words
Again, maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to the latter. It is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife. Hence, whenever a wife does not stay with her husband and claims maintenance, the only question which the Court is called upon to consider is whether she was justified to live separately from her husband and still claim maintenance from him? If the reply is in the affirmative, she is entitled to claim maintenance.
Citations : [2008 CRLJ SC 3881], [2008 AIR SC 5063], [2008 AIOL 871], [2008 SCR 11 386], [2008 ANJ SC SUPP 2 70], [2009 BOMCR SC SUPP 1 324], [2008 SCC CRI 3 839], [2008 JT 8 227], [2008 SCALE 10 602], [2008 AIR SC 3006], [2008 SCC 9 632], [2008 KERLT 3 576], [2008 AIR SCW 5063]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1952766/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae64e4b0149711413b53
Hon’ble Apex Court has held the following that Section 488 under Old Code and Section 125 under new CrPC
Section 488 does not confer an absolute right on a neglected wife to get an order of maintenance against the husband nor does it impose an absolute liability on the husband to support her in all circumstances. The use of the word “may” in Section 488(1) indicates that the power conferred on the Magistrate is discretionary. A neglected wife, therefore, cannot, under this Section, claim, as of right, an order of maintenance against the husband. of course, the Magistrate has to exercise his discretion in a judicial manner consistently with the language of the statute with the regard to other relevant circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, the Magistrate has to exercise his discretion primarily towards the end which the Legislature had in view in enacting the provision.
And then…
The mere fact that the language of s.488(1) does not expressly make the inability of a wife to
maintain herself a condition precedent to the maintainability of her petition, does not imply that while determining her claim and fixing the amount of maintenance, the Magistrate is debarred from taking into consideration the wife’s own separate income or means of support. There is a clear distinction between a wife’s locus standi, to file a petition under s. 488 and her being entitled, on merits, to a particular amount of maintenance thereunder. This distinction appears to have been overlooked in Major Joginder Singh’s case (supra). Proof of the preliminary condition attached to a neglected child will establish only his competence to file the petition but his entitlement to maintenance, particularly the fixation of its amount, will still depend upon the discretion of the Magistrate. As the Magistrate is required to exercise that discretion in a just manner, the income of the wife, also, must be put in the scales of justice as against the means of the husband.
Finally,
There is nothing in these provisions to show that in determining the maintenance and its rate, the Magistrate has to inquire into the means of the husband alone, and exclude the means of the wife altogether from consideration. Rather, there is a definite indication in the language of the associate s. 489(1) that the financial resources of the wife are also a relevant consideration in making such a determination. Section 489(1) provides inter alia, that “on proof of a change in the circumstances of any person receiving under s. 488 a monthly allowance, the Magistrate, may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit”. The “circumstances” contemplated by s. 489(1) must include financial circumstances and in that view,the inquiry as to the change in the circumstances must extend to a change in the financial circumstances of the wife.
In this judgment of High Court of Bombay, the DVC is quashed under Section 482 CrPC, as the petitioner was not having any domestic relationship with the deceased Rajesh Khanna, in the nature of marriage.
This judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Bombay is part of Celebrity Cases Series and pertaining to a wonderful actor we all know in India as Om Puri.
The dole out made by the Family Court at Bandra, awarding the following ‘interim maintenance’ to the respondent and her minor child:
(a) Rs.1,25,000/- per month to the respondent;
(b) Rs.50,000/- per month towards the minor child.
The aforesaid amount of interim maintenance is over and above the sum of Rs.1,15,000/- towards the actual education and medical expenses of the minor child, which the petitioner has been paying and continues to pay to the respondent and the minor child.
The above even after Om Puri has already been doing the following:
This resembles the death grip of a python, isn’t it? I will let you read the remaining part of the colorful judgment.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1106 access attempts in the last 7 days.
