Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 253 (MP)

Rajkumar Singh v. Sumit Singh Patel

2016-03-22

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2016
JUDGMENT : Shri Subhash Kakade, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 23.06.2015, passed in Criminal Revision No.75/2013, by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagod, District Satna affirming the order granting interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 800/- each to both the respondents vide order dated 12.03.2013, passed in M.J.C. No.09/2012, by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagod, District Satna. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents have filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagod, District Satna and inter alia contended that the applicant is father of the respondents Sumit Singh and Ku. Riya Singh Patel. Their mother has died on 01.01.2012. The respondents lived along with their maternal grand father, who has not having any means of livelihood. Hence, being the respondents in the guardianship of their maternal grand father, claimed Rs. 3,000/- per month each as maintenance. 3. Applicant entered his appearance by filing reply contending that his father-in-law executed an agreement dated 24.01.2012 with regard to the fact that the respondents since now residing with their maternal grand father. The father-in-law of the applicant illegally grab the land allotted in the name of respondents, therefore, the application filed by the respondents deserve dismissal. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagod, District Satna allowed the application filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 800/- per month each as interim maintenance to the respondents. 5. The applicant filed a criminal revision before the learned lower Revisional Court seeking dismissal of the order dated 12.03.2013. The respondents have also filed criminal revision seeking enhancement of maintenance. The learned Revisional Court affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagod, District Satna and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 800/- each to the respondents, but same time rejected the prayer of the respondents for enhancement of maintenance amount, hence, this application. 6. Shri R.K. Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant submitted finding and conclusion drawn by the Courts below is illegal and liable to be set aside because the father-in-law of the applicant himself executed an agreement and take guardianship of respondents-children. 6. Shri R.K. Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant submitted finding and conclusion drawn by the Courts below is illegal and liable to be set aside because the father-in-law of the applicant himself executed an agreement and take guardianship of respondents-children. The applicant transferred the ownership of his land in the name of respondents but on account of ill-will, to grab the land, the application seeking maintenance has been filed by the respondents under the guardianship of their maternal grand father. In view of the aforesaid, prayer is made to set aside the order of Revisional Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and after perusal of the available record carefully, this Court has came to conclusion that the application has not worth acceptance. 8. The facts are not disputed that the respondents are children of the applicant and at present the respondents are living with their maternal grand-father, due to death of their mother. 9. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by the Apex Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. reported in ( AIR 1978 SC 1807 ) falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 10. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted by the Apex Court in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in [2005 (2) SCC 503]. 11. Learned Revisional Court rightly held that the questions regarding the fact whether the applicant had made arrangements for maintenance of the respondents as well as whether the applicant is having sufficient income from agricultural land are subject for evidence. reported in [2005 (2) SCC 503]. 11. Learned Revisional Court rightly held that the questions regarding the fact whether the applicant had made arrangements for maintenance of the respondents as well as whether the applicant is having sufficient income from agricultural land are subject for evidence. This question will also be decided on basis of evidence whether the applicant is allowing the maternal grand-father of the respondents to cultivate the agricultural land for the benefit of the respondents, hence at this juncture, interim maintenance amount awarded in favour of the respondent by learned trial Court requires no interference. 12. It is the obligation of the husband to maintain wife, father to maintain children and son to maintain parents. It will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi v. C. Ganesan (1999) 6 SCC 326 . Means does not signify only visible means, such as real property or definite employment: Basanta v. Sarat 1982 CrLJ 485. An able-bodied person has sufficient means: Kandaswami v. Angammal AIR 1960 Mad 348 : 1960 CrLJ 1098 . 13. It is also held by the Apex Court that interim maintenance pendente lite can be granted–Please see- Savitri v. Govind, reported in [ AIR 1986 SC 984 : (1985) 4 SCC 337 : 1985 SCC (Cr) 556 : (1985) 2 Crimes 872]. 14. After perusal of entire record of Court below particularly impugned order as well as order of learned JMFC, no interference requires in this case for interim maintenance of the respondent. 15. In view of the aforesaid, this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.