The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that in appropriate cases an interim order of maintenance can be passed ex parte even before the service of notice upon the opposite party in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and such order is subject to modification or even cancellation
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the present petition is filed under Section 482 CrPC in order to quash the order passed by the learned family judge in which the Petitioner was directed to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the marriage of the Opposite party no. 2 is null and void and the husband of the Opposite party no. 2 is still alive and she has got four children from her husband/Chhota Mangal Marandi. It was furthermore submitted that the Opposite Party no. 2 is studying at an upgraded primary school and the name of his father and guardian is Chhota Mangal Marandi. Also, the opposite no. 2 is claiming to be the wife of the Petitioner on the basis of the compromise petition and the Petitioner stated that the marriage was solemnized as per the Santhal Rites and Customs.
Contentions of the State
The state submitted that the objective of interim maintenance, as outlined in Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., is to provide immediate relief to the poor, as well as to their wife, children, and parents. Despite being an interim order, it will always be subject to the outcome of the case brought under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It was furthermore submitted that it is undisputed that the marriage was solemnized as per Santhal Rites & Customs, then, it will be sufficient enough to get the interim maintenance.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that ex parte maintenance orders can be granted in appropriate circumstances even prior to notice being served to the opposing party in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, these orders are subject to modification or even cancellation.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Savitri w/o Govind Singh Rawat v. Govind Singh Rawat.
The court noted that the Petitioner admitted that he has solemnized marriage with the opposite party No.2 as per Aadivasi Rites and Customs and this admission of the petitioner is not even denied.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that there exists no illegality in the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court in granting interim maintenance to the opposite party No.2, of Rs.3,000/- per month.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Case Title: Santosh Marandi V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No.464 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
