Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1104 (MP)

Narendra v. Usha

2009-09-08

R.C.MISHRA

body2009
ORDER 1. Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate for wife namely Usha (hereinafter referred to as 'wife'), the applicant in Cri. Revision No.49812006 and the respondent in MCrC No.2059/2006. 2. Shri Brijesh Sharma, Advocate for husband namely Narendra (for short 'husband '),the respondent in Cri. Revision No.498/2006 and the petitioner in MCrC No.2059/2006. 3. Arguments heard. 4. This common order shall govern disposal of both the cases as they are interlinked. The MCrC is the petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), for quashing the order-dated 28.3.2006 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in Cri. Revision No. 248/ 2005 whereby the maintenance order, under Section 125 of the Code, passed on 24.10.2005 by Shri P.C. Gupta, JMFC Ashoknagar in MJC No. 43/2004, was modified. As an obvious result, the husband is now required to pay a monthly sum of Rs.1500/- as maintenance allowance to the wife w.e.f. 24.10.2005. The Revision is directed against the modifications brought into effect by the revisional order whereby the quantum of maintenance was reduced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1500/- and it was made payable from the date of order instead of date of application i.e. 21.12.2004. 5. Background facts may be summarized as under:- (i) Marriage of the parties was solemnized on 12.5.2003. Thereafter, they resided together for a short span of nearly 7 months. Immediately after returning to her parental home, the wife lodged a report against her husband and his relatives regarding cruelty and dowry harassment. Ultimately, on 21.12.2004, the proceedings for grant of a total amount of Rs. 5,000/- , as allowance were initiated inter alia on the ground that the husband having a total earning of Rs.20,000/- had neglected in maintaining her. (ii) Upon a critical appraisal of the entire evidence on record, learned Magistrate, while observing that the corresponding averments could not be established, proceeded to award a monthly sum of Rs.2,000/- for maintenance of the wife from the date of the application. In revision, learned ASJ took the view that the Magistrate had committed an error of jurisdiction in directing payment of maintenance allowance from the date of the application without recording reasons thereof. This apart, in absence of evidence as to requirement of a definite sum, the quantum of maintenance was also termed as excessive. In revision, learned ASJ took the view that the Magistrate had committed an error of jurisdiction in directing payment of maintenance allowance from the date of the application without recording reasons thereof. This apart, in absence of evidence as to requirement of a definite sum, the quantum of maintenance was also termed as excessive. Observing further that an amount of Rs.1,500/- would be sufficient for the purpose, learned ASJ modified the maintenance order as indicated hereinabove. 6. Learned counsel for the husband has strenuously contended that the wife is not only living separately without any sufficient cause but is also capable of maintaining herself. However, the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code should not be confused with the matrimonial proceedings between the parties. Further, the scope of interference, under Section 482 of the Code, with a revisional order is limited in view of the rider placed by sub-Section (3) of Section 397 of the Code. Accordingly, this Court may correct any mistake committed by the revisional Court only where, on examination of the record, it finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Court or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice.(See. Rajathi v. C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326 ).Accordingly, in view of the concurrent finding as to liability of the husband to pay the maintenance allowance, it is not necessary for this Court to re-examine the whole evidence theredbare under the inherent powers. As explained by a Full Bench of this Court in Saroj Bai v. Jai Kumar, 1994 JLJ 725 = 1994 MPLJ 928 , a decision, which is not supported by reason, is vitiated but this does not mean that the decision is void or nonest. The Superior Court is, therefore, under a duty to verify whether the order is correct or legal or proper in the face of the material available on record. The Apex Court in Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak AIR 2008 SC 3006 has also taken the view that grant of maintenance from the date of application without recording special reasons would not be improper. The relevant observation may be reproduced as under While deciding an application under Section 125 a Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting or refusing to grant maintenance to wives, children or parents. The relevant observation may be reproduced as under While deciding an application under Section 125 a Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting or refusing to grant maintenance to wives, children or parents. Such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance, from the date of the application, express order is necessary. No special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the Court. No such requirement can be read in sub-section (1) of Section 125 in absence of express provision to that effect. 7. However, there is yet another aspect of the matter. The wife was not able to lead cogent evidence as to the actual need of money for her maintenance. No specific prayer was made in the application for grant of maintenance from the date of the application. The proceedings also culminated within a reasonable period. In the wake of these facts and circumstances of the case, the direction to the effect that the maintenance allowance to be payable from the date of the application, though not liable to be interfered with, solely on the ground of absence of special reasons, was not well-merited otherwise. 8. It is well settled that the wife is entitled to maintain a standard of living, which is neither luxurious nor penurious and also to lead a decent life yet, at par with the dignity and status of her husband. Taking into consideration all the material aspects of the matter including the social background, the standard of living of the parties and rise in cost of living, the downward revision of the maintenance allowance was not justified. 9. In the result, the petition, under Section 482 of the Code, stands dismissed and the revision is allowed in part. The revisional order is modified and it is directed that the husband shall pay a monthly sum of Rs.2,000/- as maintenance allowance to the wife from 24.10.2005 viz. the date of the order passed by the Magistrate. Copy of the order be retained in the connected case.