Rajendra Kumar Vs Rukhmani Bisen on 02 Feb 2023

A single bench judge of MP High Court at Jabalpur held as follows,

From Paras 5 and 6, (What is an interlocutory order?)

5. Now question remains for consideration is whether the order of interim maintenance passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order? Consequently, whether criminal revision petition is lie against that order?
6. Term ‘Interlocutory Order’ has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.C. Shukla vs State, reported in AIR 1980 (SC) 962, has given following observation in para No.23 regarding the nature of interlocutory order:-
“Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in the ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all. This would be the result if the term interlocutory order is interpreted in its natural and logical sense without having to resort to Criminal Procedure Code or any other statute. ‘That is to say, if we construe interlocutory order in ordinary parlance it would indicate the attributes, mentioned above, and this is what the term interlocutory order means when used in s. 11(1) of the Act.”

From Para 9,

9. In the case of Sumerchand vs Sandhuran Rani and Others, reported in 1987 Cr.L.J. 1396, Sunil Kumar Sabharwal vs Neelam Sabharwal, reported in 1991 Cr.L.J. 2056 High Court of Haryana and a order dated 15.11.18 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Ashu Dhiman vs Smt Jyoti Dhiman, Cr. Misc. Application (C-482) No.434/2018, it has been held that an order passed for interim maintenance under provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C is not an interlocutory order, hence, criminal revision petition is maintainable against such order.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Bai Tahira A Vs Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia and Anr on 06 Oct 1978

Posted on May 29, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A full bench of Apex Court held that, a statutory right created as a projection of public policy can not be negated by a contract.

The last defence, based on mehar payment, merits more serious attention. The contractual limb of the contention must easily fail. The consent decree of 1962 resolved all disputes and settled all claims then available But here is a new statutory right created as a projection of public policy by the Code of 1973, which could not have been in the contemplation of the parties when in 1962, they entered into a contract to adjust their then mutual rights. No settlement of claims which does not have the special statutory right of the divorcee under s. 125 can operate to negate that claim.

Bai Tahira A Vs Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia and Anr on 06 Oct 1978

Citations : [1979 SCC CRI 473], [1979 SCR 2 75], [1979 AIR SC 362], [1979 MPLJ SC 132], [1979 CRLJ SC 151], [1979 SCC 2 316]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/359354/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd27f607dba63d7e69d57

Index is here.

Lifecycle Stages of a Maintenance Case under Section 125 CrPC

Posted on December 10, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Listed below are a reasonably laid out sequence of events in a Maintenance Case filed under Section 125 of CrPC. Also, various other Maintenance cases under CrPC and remedies are presented at the end of this article.

Other Life Cycles: 498A IPC Case Lifecycle || DV Case Lifecycle. Index of all life cycles is here. Looking for Maintenance case-laws? go here!

Initial signs of facing a Maintenance case u/s 125 CrPC

This is the 3rd false case after the 498A IPC and Domestic Violence cases, that you may face. This case completes what is colloquially called as Full package. First a criminal case is filed so that Police power can be misused and when that does not break you, Civil reliefs are prayed for through Domestic Violence case. When even that plot fails and you don’t budge, the final attack comes in the form of this maintenance case, in which they think there is a sure shot success in extracting money from you. How comical bozos these are… hahahaha

The COMPLAINT

The petition/application u/s 125 CrPC containing the facts of the case, stating the circumstances under which the wife (as per the law, parents or children can also seek maintenance in cases of neglect) seeks to claim maintenance, all personal relevant details is filed before the Family Court (or jurisdictional Junior Civil Judge Court if Family Court is not available).

Issue of Notice to the Respondent

The Family Court scrutinizes the petition and issues notice to the husband against whom the petition has been filed by the wife. Petitioner copy may be sent along with notice.

Reference to Reconciliation/Mediation

The parties may be directed to appear before the court for reconciliation or may be directed to mediation and efforts are made to reconcile them first in an effort to avoid litigation.

Reconciliation Proceedings

If the reconciliation proceedings after being conducted by the family court are successful, then the matter stands settled. If they lead to failure, then the Court proceeds with the petition to decide it on merits.

Written Statement (of objections)

After giving a copy of the petition to the Respondent, the Family Court directs the opposite part to file a reply/WS/Counter to the maintenance petition stating the facts which he/she accepts or denies. Both the parties are also asked to file their detailed Income Affidavit (as per Rajnesh Vs Neha Case) so that it can infer the capabilities and liabilities. Petitioner must be given a copy of reply.

Rejoinder/Rebuttal

The petitioner is directed to file a rejoinder/rebuttal to reply filed by the opposite party. The application for interim maintenance, if any filed by the petitioner, is decided by the court at this stage of the case, based on pleadings and affidavits alone. No evidence will be entertained to decide Interim applications. Respondent must be given a copy.

Framing of Issues

The court then proceeds further and frames issues for adjudication and the matter is posted for evidence of the parties.

Petitioner’s Evidence

The petitioner is directed to lead its evidence by way of filing the relevant documents, papers, etc. and by summoning all its witnesses. List of witnesses must be given to other side before examining the first prosecution witness. Once prosecution witness examination completes by way of Chief Examination Affidavit, the witness will face Cross Examination from the Counsel of opposite party and the deposition of each witness is recorded, up on oath.

Respondent’s Evidence

The respondent is directed to lead its evidence by way of filing the relevant documents, papers, etc. and by summoning all its witnesses. This is optional and the Respondent may forego examination/ evidence, if they think that the prosecution failed to support their case.

FINAL ARGUMENTS –

The final arguments in the matter are held and the matter is decided by the court. Written Arguments may also be submitted to the Family Court, as a best practice.

Order/Judgment

The Court finally passes the final order/judgement where it may either dismiss the petition or allow the petition and direct the other party to pay an amount as directed by the court monthly.

Infographic

Key Contributor:

Ms. Suprajaa Rajan (B.Com., LL.B.)

Cell:

Pritilata Majumder Vs Krishnapada Majumder on 23 Apr 2021

Posted on May 13, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on Apex Court decision here, Single Judge of High Court of Tripura held that the evidence of a dumb witness is a competent witness as per section 119 of Evidence Act.

[14] Evidently the petitioner was produced in court and an expert trained in sign language was also engaged by the court to interpret her evidence. As observed by the court, since the petitioner did not understand sign language she could not communicate her evidence to the interpreter and as a result the interpreter could not interpret her evidence to court. However, the petitioner was able to communicate to the court by her signs and gestures that everything of her life was known to her mother.

[15] In this emerged situation, mother [PW-2] of the petitioner is the best witness on her side. She had intimate knowledge of the signs and gestures and meaning of all expressions of her daughter who was brought up by her since her birth. None on earth other than her could better understand her daughter. The mother categorically stated at the trial that marriage of her daughter with the respondent was solemnized in a temple at Kumarghat and after marriage a daughter was born to her and thereafter the respondent left the area. Her evidence was supported by PW-3, a 70 years old man, unrelated to the petitioner who had no reason to tell lie. Moreover, the husband managed to escape. He never appeared either at the trial court or before this Court to discharge his burden. It was not unknown to him that legal proceedings were initiated by his wife against him because he was arrested in one of the cases instituted by his petitioner wife.

[16] A bare perusal of section 119 of the Evidence Act would show that a deaf and dumb witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner intelligible to the court. It may be by writing or by signs in open court. It is evident that the mother [PW-2] and her petitioner daughter [PW-1] came to the court on the same day for giving deposition in the case. It also appears from the record that the petitioner was a literate person. She was able to read and write. Therefore, in case of any doubt, the court could have asked her to communicate her words in writing. The court could have also cleared its doubts from the mother of the petitioner by putting the questions to her in exercise of its power under section 165 of the Evidence Act. Without taking recourse to such means, the Family Court rejected the petition declining to grant maintenance allowance to the petitioner and her daughter which is unacceptable.

Pritilata Majumder Vs Krishnapada Majumder on 23 Apr 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50658253/

Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr on 14 Oct 1999

Posted on May 13, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A Division bench of the Supreme Court held as follows,

“6………………In our view, validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under section 494 of the I.P.C. If the claimant in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the Court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption………………”

Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr on 14 Oct 1999

Citations : [1999 ACR SC 3 2547], [1999 AIR SC 3348], [1999 ALD CRI 2 955], [1999 ALR 37 733], [2000 ALT CRI 1 29], [1999 CALLT SC 3 61], [2000 CLT SC 89 167], [1999 GLH 2 1037], [1999 JT SC 8 329], [2000 LW CRL 1 218], [2000 PLJR 1 61], [2000 RLW SC 1 23], [1999 SCALE 6 579], [1999 SCC 7 675], [1999 SUPP SCR 3 684], [1999 SCC CRI 1345], [1999 SUPREME 8 602], [2000 CRLJ 0 1], [1999 RCR CRIMINAL 4 577], [2000 CRI LJ 0 1], [2000 OCR SC 18 348], [1999 AIR SC 3844], [2000 BOMCR CRI SC 731], [1999 CRIMES SC 3 206], [2000 LW CRL 1 217], [2000 CRLJ SC 1], [1999 AIR SCW 3844]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/305700/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad5ee4b0149711411339

R D Vs B D on 31 July, 2019

Posted on August 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Another dirty judgment, this time from High Court of Delhi.

R D Vs B D on 31 July, 2019

Ajay Bhardwaj Vs Jyotsana and others on 23 November, 2016

Posted on January 6, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Just read this judgment from P&H HC which held that, even thought when there is a subsisting marriage under HMA, living-together with another man or giving birth to twins with him, can be termed as marriage-like relationship.

Ajay Bhardwaj Vs Jyotsana and others on 23 November, 2016

Journey through the years – Section 125 CrPC

Posted on December 31, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is to chronicle the journey of the Section 125 CrPC through the years from its enactment.

All Amendments to Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of India

Posted on December 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is the general procedural law of India and below are the amendments made to this law over the period.

S. No.	Short title of amending legislation	Act No.	Act Year	Modification or Addition Brought In	Leader and Party in Central/State Government
1	The Repealing and Amending Act, 1974	56	1974	Nothing useful in particular.	Indira Gandhi (Indian National Congress)
2	The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1978	45	1978	Amendment to 468 CrPC: Period of limitation for related offences which may be tried together	Morarji Desai (Janata Party)
3	The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1980	63	1980	All proceedings under sections 108, 109 and 110 of CrPC, pending before any Judicial Magistrate of the first class immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, be dealt with as if this Act had not been enacted	Indira Gandhi (Indian National Congress)
4	The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983, wiki	43	1983	In the backdrop of Mathura Custodial rape case, sections to prevent/tackle such abuse are brought in.	Indira Gandhi (Indian National Congress)
5	The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983	46	1983	Introduction of Sec 498A IPC, Sec 198A CrPC and Sec 113A of Evidence Act Amendment to Sections 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973	Indira Gandhi (Indian National Congress)
6	The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1988	32	1988	Nothing useful in particular.	Rajiv Gandhi (Indian National Congress)
7	The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1990	10	1990	Insertion of 166A: Letter of request to competent authority for investigation in a country or place outside India Insertion of 166B: Letter of request from a country or place outside India to a Court or an authority for investigation in India.	Vishwanath Pratap Singh (Indian National Congress)
8	The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991	43	1991	Nothing useful in particular.	P.V. Narasimha Rao (Indian National Congress)
9	The Code of Criminal Procedure (Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1992	03	1992	Sections 494, 495 IPC are made Cognizable and non-bailable within the State of Andhra Pradesh/Telangana.	N. Janardhana Reddy (Indian National Congress)
9	The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1993	40	1993	New chapter VVIA introduced with provisions (150A-150L) relating to bringing back proceeds of crime from outside India.	P.V. Narasimha Rao (Indian National Congress)
10	The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1993	42	1993	Kidnapping for Ransom	P.V. Narasimha Rao (Indian National Congress)
11	The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001	50	2001	Ceiling of Rs.500/- was removed. Introduction of interim maintenance along with expenses of proceedings Disposal of interim maintenance application within sixty days	Atal Bihari Vajpayee (Bharatiya Janata Party)
12	Code of Criminal Procedure (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2003	11	2003	Sections 494 and 498A of IPC are added to the list of Compoundable offence u/s 320 Cr.P.C.	N. Chandrababu Naidu (Telugu Desam Party)
13	The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005	25	2005	No woman shall be arrested after sunset and before sunrise Sec 50A(1): Every police officer or other person making an arrest under this code shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is held to any of his friends, relatives or such persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information. Examination includes DNA-profiling Sec 144A: Power to prohibit carrying arms in possession or mass drill or mass training with arms. Sec 164A: Medical examination of the victim of rape Sec 291A: Identification report of Magistrate Sec 311A: Power of Magistrate to order a person to give specimen signatures or handwriting Sec 436A: Maximum period for which as undertrial prisoner can be detained Sec 441A: Declaration by sureties Increase of fines across many sections	Dr. Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress)
14	The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005	2	2006	Sec 195A: Threatening or inducing any person to give false evidence Introduction of new chapter XXIA: Plea bargaining, (265A-265L CrPC) Amendment to 340 CrPC	Dr. Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress)
15	The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Amending Act, 2006	25	2006	Different dates for effectiveness for different provisions of CrPC (Amendment) Act 2005	Dr. Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress)
16	Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008	5	2009	Introduction of Sec 41A-41D CrPC: Notice of appearance before police officer Introduction of recording statements/confessions in audio-video electronic means via provisos u/s 161, 164 and 275 CrPC Sec 195A CrPC: Procedure for witnesses in case of threatening etc A witness of any other person may file a complaint in relation to an offence under section 195A of Indian Penal Code. No adjournment should be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party Filing of WS under 313 CrPC Sec 357A CrPC: Victim Compensation Scheme	Dr. Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress)
17	Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2010	41	2010	Powers of Police without warrant	Dr. Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress)
18	Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, wiki	13	2013	In the aftermath of Nirbhaya gang rape case, New sections for Sexual harassment, 354A-354D Sec 357B and 357C CrPC: Rape Victim Compensation Scheme New sections for Trafficking of persons, 370 and 370A Bulk of sections for rape u/s 376 IPC, (376A-376E) New offence u/s 166A was inserted into IPC which can be invoke against police if they violate laws. Per the new Explanation given to sec 197 CrPC, no sanction is required to prosecute the police.	Dr. Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress)
19	Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, wiki	22	2018	In the aftermath of the Kathua gang rape and murder case, key Acts are amended. Highlights are (a) punishment for the offence of rape from the minimum imprisonment of seven years to ten years, which is extendable to imprisonment for life; (b) punishment for the offence of rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years but may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life and shall also be liable to fine; (c) punishment for the offence of rape on a woman under twelve years of age shall be rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years but may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life and with fine or with death; (d) punishment for the offence of gang rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life and with fine; (e) punishment for the offence of gang rape on a woman under twelve years of age shall be imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life and with fine or with death; (f) investigation in relation to all rape cases shall be completed within a period of two months from the date on which the information recorded by the officer- in-charge of the police station; (g) completion of inquiry or trial relating to the offence of rape, within a period of two months; (h) dispose of an appeal against a conviction or acquittal in rape cases within a period of six months from the date of filing of the appeal; (i) the provisions of anticipatory bail shall not be applicable in cases of rape or gang rape of woman under sixteen and twelve years of age; (j) consequential amendments in the Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 relating to the cases of rape, gang rape of the woman below the age of sixteen years, twelve years, repeat offenders, to extend the applicability of compulsory registration of FIRs, fine imposed to be paid to victim, facilitate better recording of evidence and protect the dignity of rape survivor and treatment free of cost in hospitals.	Narendra Damodardas Modi (Bharatiya Janata Party)

Any new amendments will be updated as and when available.

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001

Posted on December 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the amendment to CrPC that removed the ceiling of Rs.500/- under the 125 CrPC. And this is the amendment that brought in ‘interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding’. A proviso is introduced which talk about disposal of interim maintenance application under 125 CrPC within 60 days. Of course, 127 CrPC is similarly screwed. And 128 CrPC is altered.

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001

All the amendments made to the CrPC are available here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 125 – Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents

Rajendra Kumar Vs Rukhmani Bisen on 02 Feb 2023

Bai Tahira A Vs Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia and Anr on 06 Oct 1978

Lifecycle Stages of a Maintenance Case under Section 125 CrPC

Ms. Suprajaa Rajan (B.Com., LL.B.)

Cell:

Pritilata Majumder Vs Krishnapada Majumder on 23 Apr 2021

Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr on 14 Oct 1999

R D Vs B D on 31 July, 2019

Ajay Bhardwaj Vs Jyotsana and others on 23 November, 2016

Journey through the years – Section 125 CrPC

All Amendments to Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of India

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001