R. P. (Family Court) No. 03 of 2015. Case: Shri Shiva Kumar Pradhan Vs Smt. Meena Rawat and Anr.. Sikkim High Court

Case NumberR. P. (Family Court) No. 03 of 2015
CounselFor Petitioner: A. Moulik, Sr. Advocate, B. K. Gupta, Advs. and For Respondents: N. B. Khatiwada, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Gita Bista, Advs.
JudgesSunil Kumar Sinha, C.J.
IssueCriminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Sections 125, 127
Citation2016 CriLJ 1017
Judgement DateDecember 01, 2015
CourtSikkim High Court


  1. This Petition is directed against the Order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Family Court, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Case No.11/2014 filed u/S.127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short, Cr.P.C.).

  2. By the impugned order, the Family Court has enhanced the amount of monthly maintenance granted in favour of the Second Respondent, in Family (Crl.) Case No.18/2009, u/S. 125 of the Cr.P.C.

  3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:

    Petitioner is father of the Second Respondent. Presently, the Second Respondent is residing separately with his mother, the First Respondent. Earlier, the two Respondents had filed the said Family (Crl.) Case No.18/2009 u/S. 125 of the Cr.P.C., in which a sum of Rs.6,500/- was granted as monthly maintenance to the Second Respondent vide Order dated 19.02.2011. The two Respondents, thereafter, filed Case No.11/2014 u/S.127 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the aforesaid amount. The learned Family Court, after recording evidence of the parties, enhanced the aforesaid amount of monthly maintenance from Rs.6,500/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. Over and above, the Family Court also granted Rs.5.00 lakhs in favour of the First Respondent towards the amount incurred by her upon admission and prosecution of studies of the Second Respondent in an Engineering College at Bengaluru.

  4. Mr. A. Moulik, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has argued that the Second Respondent, whose date of birth was 08.01.1994, had attained majority on 07.01.2012, therefore, he was not entitled to receive maintenance u/S. 125, Cr.P.C. after the said date, hence no enhancement u/S.127, Cr.P.C. was possible. He has also argued that grant of lump sum amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs in the above manner was also not permissible u/S. 127, Cr.P.C., therefore, the Order should be set aside.

  5. On the other hand, Mr. N. B. Khatiwada, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, has opposed these arguments. According to him, Section 125 and Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. are two different provisions providing independent jurisdiction, therefore, the question of majority attained by the Second Respondent would make no difference. So far as grant of lump sum amount is concerned, he has argued that, in fact, the First Respondent had incurred about Rs.14.00 lakhs towards education of the Second Respondent and the Family Court was right in granting the said amount because it is the moral responsibility of the Petitioner to bear the expenses, which are incurred towards education of the Second Respondent. He cited a decision of the Bombay High Court rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 2117 of 2012; Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat v. Ajayveer Chapotkat, 2014 SCC Online Bom 465.

  6. I have heard Counsel for the parties.

  7. A perusal of paragraph 23 of the impugned Order would show that the Family Court took into account that the Second Respondent had attained majority, but, instead of deciding as to what effect it shall cause, it simply stated that it was the moral responsibility of the Petitioner to look after the educational expenses of the Second Respondent. The Family Court then recorded a finding that entire monthly expenditure, including the educational expenses, of the Second Respondent was about Rs.30,000/-...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT