The Allahabad High Court has noted that it is possible for a second application for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC to be valid even after the rejection of the initial application, provided there have been significant changes in circumstances that make the person eligible to claim maintenance under that provision.
A single judge bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma, emphasized that the obligation to provide maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is an ongoing one. The court expressed the opinion that if the right to file an application for maintenance is completely barred, it would undermine the fundamental objective of Section 125 CrPC.
Brief Facts:
In this case, the second respondent (wife) submitted an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking maintenance from her husband (petitioner in the High Court). However, the application was rejected in January 1995 based on certain grounds. Subsequently, in 2003, she filed a second application under Section 125 of the CrPC, claiming that there had been a change in circumstances due to her husband's remarriage, thus entitling her to claim maintenance from him.
The Court of ACJM-Banda granted her second application in January 2004, ordering the husband (petitioner) to pay her Rs. 1,500 per month. The husband contested the order through a criminal revision plea, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge of Banda. Now, in an attempt to challenge the orders issued by the trial court and the revisional court, he has approached the High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner's primary contention was that his wife did not contest the order that rejected her first application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). As a result, the order became final, and according to the principle of constructive res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again in the second plea. The petitioner argued that the subsequent proceedings initiated by his wife are barred by this principle.
Observations of the Court:
The Court initially acknowledged that the primary objective of proceedings under Section 125 CrPC is to prevent homelessness and poverty, aiming to provide swift assistance to members of society. The Court dismissed the petitioner's counsel's argument asserting that the wife's second application would be prohibited by the principle of res judicata. Concerning the wife's claim of a change in circumstances, specifically, her husband's remarriage, which prompted her to file a second application, the Court recognized the objection raised by the petitioner. However, as an exercise of its writ jurisdiction, the Court cannot delve into disputed factual matters.
As a result, the Court declined to interfere with the trial court or the revisional court's orders within the scope of its writ jurisdiction. In a related development, the Delhi High Court stated last year that if a party claims a change in circumstances subsequent to the issuance of a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC, the appropriate recourse would be to seek relief under Section 127 of the Code, rather than filing a fresh petition under Section 125. Emphasizing the doctrine of res judicata, the bench explained that this principle has been established to prevent repetitive litigation on the same issues, ensuring the finality of legal proceedings.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition being devoid of any ground to interfere in the order of the trial court or of the revisional court in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this court.
Case Title: Shyam Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyotsana Sharma
Case no.: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22529 of 2008
Advocate for the Petitioner: - Satish Kumar Mishra
Advocate for the Respondent: - Govt. Advocate,Shyam Sunder Mishra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
