Summary
The petitioner sought divorce through the civil court from the respondent and the respondent claimed maintenance from the criminal court. As an interim measure, the district court awarded maintenance and the High Court fixed the rate at Rs. 400/- per mensem for the spouse as a provisional figure. Meanwhile the Magistrate, on the evidence before him, ordered ex parte, monthly maintenance at Rs. 1000/- for the respondent-mother and two children together.
In this Court, the petitioner contended : (i) a civil court's determination of the quantum is entitled to serious weight and the criminal court, in its summary decision fell into an error in ignoring the former; and (ii) the awardable maximum for mother and children, as a whole under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was Rs. 500/-, having regard to the text of the section.Dismissing the special leave petition, the CourtHELD (1) Though a final determination of a civil right by a civil court must prevail against a like decision in a criminal court, in the instant case, two factors make the principle inapplicable. Firstly, the direction by the Civil Court is not a final determination under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act but an order pendente lite under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to pay the expenses of the proceeding and monthly during the proceeding, such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. Secondly, this amount does not include the claim for maintenance of the children although the order does advert to the fact that the respondent has their custody. This incidental direction is no comprehensive adjudication. Therefore, barring marginal relevance for the Magistrate, it does not bar his jurisdiction to award a higher maintenance and the Magistrate cannot be faulted for giving Rs. 1000/- on this score. [784 D-F](2) Sections of Statutes calling for construction by Courts are not petrified print, but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children, must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. [785B-C](3) The provision in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Art. 39.[785 B](4) 'In the whole' in the context means working all the items of maintenance together not all the members of the family put together. This interpretation accords with social justice and semantics and, is obvious. [787 B](5) Each claimant for maintenance, be he or she, wife, child, father, or mother is independently entitled to maintenance upto a maximum of Rs 500/-. Indeed an opposite conclusion may lead to absurdity. Therefore, courts cannot agree to the obvious jurisdictional inequity by reading a limitation of Rs. 500/although what the section plainly means is that the court cannot grant more than Rs. 500/- for each one of the claimants. The Magistrate did not exceed his powers while awarding Rs. 1000/- for mother and children all together.[786G, 787A]Prabhavati v. Sumatilal, AIR 1954 Bom. 546 (FB); Md. Bashir v. Noor Jahan Begum, [1971] Crl. LJ. 553 (Cal.); approved.783 (6) Mere divorce does not end the right to maintenance.Whether the appeal ends in divorce or no, the wife's claim for maintenance qua wife under the definition contained in Explanation (b) to s. 125 of the Code continues, unless parties make adjustments and come to terms regarding the quantum or the right to maintenance. [788 C-D]See the full content of this document
Extract
Ramesh Chander Kaushal VS. Veena Kaushal & Ors.
PETITIONER: RAMESH CHANDER KAUSHAL Vs.RESPONDENT: VEENA KAUSHAL & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT27/04/1978BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R.BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R.DESAI, D.A.CITATION: 1978 AIR 1807 1978 SCR (3) 782 1978 SCC (4) 70ACT: Criminal Procedure Code, (Act II of 1974), 1973 Section 125- Scope of-Construction of the words "in the whole" occurring in s. 125.JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1268 of 1977.From the Judgment and Order dated 5-9-1977 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No. 224 of 1977.S. T. Desai and R. Bana for the Petitioner.Y. M. Isser, S. Balakrishnan and M. K. D. Namboodri for the Respondent.The Order of the Court was delivered byKRISHNA IYER, J.-Social justi...
See the full content of this document