The Allahabad High Court quashed the impugned judgement and order dated 02.02.2022 whereby the application of Revisionist under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance, had been rejected. A single judge bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Raj Beer Singh observed that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy.
Brief Facts:
This criminal revision was preferred against the judgement and order dated 02.02.2022, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, whereby the application of Revisionist under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance, had been rejected.
Contentions of the Revisionist:
The learned Counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the Revisionist was harassed by the opposite party No.2 and his family members and that in the month of November, 2014, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. It was further submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the Revisionist has a sufficient cause and reasons to live separately. Her case was dismissed wrongly on the grounds that she resides separately without any just cause. Learned Counsel for Revisionist had placed reliance upon the decision of Smt. Kiran Singh vs. State of U.P. and another [Criminal Revision No.896 of 2019], decided on 26.04.2022.
Observations of the Court:
Firstly, this Court observed that the object of a maintenance grant is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who cannot maintain herself. Further, maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty. It is awarded to her so that she can survive. The fact that time is spent between the date of the application and a final adjudication and an award in favor of the wife, does not mean that she had enough funds to maintain herself.
The Court found that the Family Court had dismissed the case of Revisionist under section 125 CrPC on the sole ground that she is staying separately from her husband without any reason. However, the Court recorded the finding that she is a legally wedded wife of the opposite party No. 2 and that she has no source of income to maintain herself and that she has not been provided any maintenance so far.
In regard to the contradictions in the statements of the Revisionist, the view of the Court is that proceedings under section 125 CrPC are of a summary nature and in such matters, evidence of claimant/wife seeking maintenance is not to be appreciated in a manner like in criminal trial for offences under Indian Penal Code or other substantial criminal offences. Further, it was observed that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent the vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter with a speedy remedy. Thus, considering the above observations, impugned judgment and order were set aside.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court, allowing the application, quashed the impugned judgment and remanded the matter back to the Family Court.
Case Title: Bitola @ Rinku vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Raj Beer Singh
Case no.: CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 811 of 2022
Advocate for the Revisionist: - Ravindra Kumar
Advocate for the Respondents: - G.A.,Pradeep Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :