Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1618 (RAJ)

Sanjay Kumar Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan

2018-08-01

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2018
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.1.2017 in Criminal Misc Case No. 348/2015 whereby, learned Judge Family Court, Sriganganagar allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month to respondent no.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that previously a compromise was arrived at between the parties and one affidavit was filed by the petitioner which is marked as NA/1A, therefore, on the basis of said compromise, the petitioner has already paid whole of the amount and the dowry article, therefore, no maintenance should have been awarded by the Family Court to the respondent and the Family court has committed an error in awarding maintenance to the respondent. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 argued that in cross-examination of respondent no.2 AW/1 Puja has clearly mentioned that whatever agreement was arrived at in the form of compromise has not been fulfilled by the petitioner Sanjay Kumar Bhargava. Likewise petitioner Sanjay Kumar Bhargava has been examined as NAW/1 in which he has admitted that dowry articles mentioned in the agreement which is Ex.NA/1A have not been given to respondent no.2. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the impugned order and scanned the entire record. 6. Section 125 of the Code makes provision for the grant of maintenance to wives, children and parents. Sub-section (1) of Section 125 inter alia says that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife. section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 reads as under: "125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents, - 1. xxxxx 2. xxxxx 3. xxxxx 4. No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. 5. No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. 5. On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order. 7. A holistic reading of the provisions would clearly reveal that the responsibility and liability of a person to maintain his wife, children and parents rests on the condition that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain them (wife, children, parents), he can be ordered to make a monthly allowance for maintenance of his wife or child or parents at such monthly rate. The sub-sections 4 and 5, categorically makes it clear as to when the wife is not entitled to maintenance. It is specifically enacted by the legislature that the wife is not entitled to receive maintenance if she is living in adultery or if she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason or that they are living separately by mutual consent. 8. In the instant case, the respondent no.2 wife in her statement has mentioned that whatever agreement was arrived at in the form of compromise has not been fulfilled by the petitioner Sanjay Kumar Bhargava. Petitioner has also been examined as NAW/1 in which he has admitted that dowry articles mentioned in the agreement which is Ex.NA/1 have not been given to respondent no.2. He further admitted that at the time of agreement, only Rs. 10,000/- was given to the respondent and after that he has not paid anything to respondent no.2 Smt. Puja. All these facts clearly show that the petitioner Sanjay Kumar Bhargava has not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the agreement. Thus, by virtue of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C , 1973referred to above, the respondent is entitled to maintenance. 9. All these facts clearly show that the petitioner Sanjay Kumar Bhargava has not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the agreement. Thus, by virtue of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C , 1973referred to above, the respondent is entitled to maintenance. 9. In view of the above, the learned court below has not committed any error in awarding maintenance to the respondent wife as per section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.