The Allahabad High Court has affirmed the validity of a second application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in cases where there are changes in circumstances warranting such a claim. Justice Jyotsna Sharma, while emphasizing the continuing nature of the liability to maintain, held that the principle of res judicata does not apply to summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
The case in question involved a wife (respondent no. 2) who had filed an initial application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, which was dismissed in January 1995. Subsequently, in 2003, she filed a second application citing changed circumstances, specifically the husband's remarriage, as grounds for claiming maintenance. The second application was allowed by the court in January 2004, ordering the husband to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance. The husband challenged this order in a criminal revision plea, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge.
The petitioner contended that the wife's failure to challenge the rejection of her first application under Section 125 CrPC rendered the subsequent proceedings barred by the principle of res judicata. However, the High Court rejected this argument, stating that the purpose of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, providing quick relief to members of society.
Justice Sharma further highlighted that the liability to maintain under Section 125 CrPC is continuous, and a person has the right to apply for maintenance if there is a change in circumstances. The court stressed that it cannot interfere in disputed questions of fact during the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In this context, the court ruled that the principle of res judicata does not apply to summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.
The judgment underlines the importance of recognizing evolving circumstances and allowing individuals to seek maintenance when they are entitled to it. By upholding the second application for maintenance, the court ensures that the intent of Section 125 CrPC is not frustrated and individuals are not left in destitution due to changed circumstances.
It is worth noting that last year, the Delhi High Court also addressed the issue of change in circumstances after an order granting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The court observed that seeking relief under Section 127 of the CrPC would be the appropriate recourse in such cases, rather than filing a fresh petition under Section 125. The doctrine of res judicata was highlighted as a means to prevent repeated litigation on the same issues and ensure finality in legal proceedings.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
