LexBHUPINDER SINGH versus DALJIT KAUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. A B c D 2 92 BHUPINDER SINGH v. DALJIT KAUR November 13, 1978 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, P. N. SHINGHAL AND A. P. SEN, JJ.J Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 Scope of. The respondent obtained an ex parte maintenance award for a sum of lls. 250/- p.m. from the Court of competent jurisdiction under Sec. 125 Crl.P.C. Subsequently, as a result of a compromise between the parties and resumption of cohabitation an application was made by the re5pondent praying that her application for maintenance be dismissed and the executiou proceedings for recovery of maintenance be withdrawn. Though the Trial Court did not pro- ceed to recover the arrears of maintenance it did not set aside the award. As the respondent was betrayed, :.he proceeded to enforce the order for mainte- nance. The petitioner resisted the application on the ground that resumption of cohabitation, after the orginal order for maintenance revoked the said order. This plea having been rejected right through the petitioner came up by way of special leave. Dismissing the petition, the Court, HELD : The Criminal Procedure Code is complete on the topic and any defence against an order passed under section 125 Crl.P.C. must be founded on a provision in the Code. Section 125 is a provision to protect the weaker E of the tv.'o parties, namely, the neglected wife. If an order for maintenance bas been made against the deserter it will operate until vacated or altered in terms of the provisions of the Code itself, if the husband has a case under section 125(4)(5) or section 127 of the Code it is open to him to initiate ,I( appropriate proceedings. But until the original order for maintenance is modi· fied or cancelled by a higher oourt or is varied or vacated in terms of section """ 125(4) or (5) or section 127, its validity survives. It is enforceable and no :;- F plea that there has been cohabitation in the interregnum or that there has G been a compromise between the parties can hold good as a valid defence. [294G-H. 295A] A statutory order can ordinarily be demolished only in terms of the statute. That being absent in the present case the Magistra.te will execute the order for maintenance [295 Bl Fazal Din v. Mt. Fati1na, A.LR. 1932 Lahore P. 115; appfoved. Natesan Pillai v. Jaya11111u111i, A.I.R. 1960 Madras, U. Po Chein v. Ma Sein Mya. A.LR. 1931 Rangoon. 89, A.mpavalli Vurabhadrudu v. Ampavalli Gavi- ra1111na 1955 A.1.R. (Crl.) p. 244; over-ruled. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION fl of 1978. Review Petition No. 95 K. R. Nagaraja, S. K. Mehta and P. N. Puri for the petitioner. ... - ·- BHUPINDER v. DALJIT (Krishna Iyer, J.) 2 93 The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J.-A short narrative of the facts is neces- ,sary to explore and explode the submission that a subs- 1antial question of law arises, which merits grant of leave under art. 136 of the Constitution. The respondent is the wife of the petitioner. She moved the Magistrate, having jurisdic- tion over the subject-matter, for grant of maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court awarded maintenance. in a sum of Rs. 250/- per mensem but the order was made ex-parte since the petitioner did not appear in court. The motion for setting aside 'the ex parte order was dismissed whereupon a criminal revision was 1iled by the husband before the High Court. During the pendency of the said petition a compromise was entered into between the parties as a result of which the wife resumed cohabitation with the husband. This resumption of conjugal life was followed by an application by the wife (respondent) praying that her application for maintenance be dismissed 'and the. execution proceedings for recovery of arrears of maintenance be withdrawn. Apparently, on this basis the trial court did not proceed to ·recover arrears of maintenance. But as the record now stands, the order for maintenance remains. That has not been set aside and must 'be treated as subsisting. The High Court apparently dismissed the revision petitioll on the score that the parties had compromised the dis- pute. Later developments were not as smooth as expected. The wife was betrayed, because her allegation is that her husband is keeping a mistress making it impossible for her to live in the conjugal home. Naturally, ·she proceeded to enforce the order for maintenance. This was resisted by the petitioner (husband) on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.