LexRAMESH CHANDER KAUSHAL versus VEENA KAUSHAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B 782 RAMESH CHANDER KAUSHAL v. VEENA KAUSHAL & ORS. April 27, 1978 and August 22, 1978 (V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, (Act 11 of 1974), 1973 Section 125-Scope of- Construction of the 1vords "in the whole" occurring in .s. 125. 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 spQuse as a proviaionaI figure. ~1ean while the h.fagistrate, on the evidence before him, ordered ex par:e, monthly C maintenance at Rs. 1_000/- for the respond'ent-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 award-- able maximum for mother and children, as a whole under section 125 of the j _, ... Code of Criminal Procedure was Rs. 5001-, having regard to the text of the :If section. .#/ D Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court HELD ( 1) Though a final determination of a civil right by a ci vii court must preva.il against a like decisioin 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 respon- E dent, 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 direc- tion is no comprehensive adjudication. Therefore, barring marginal relevance for the 1\-fagistrate, it does 11ot bar bis jurisdiction to award a higher maintenance and the Magistrate cannot be faulted for giving Rs. 1000/- on this score. F G H [784 D-FJ (2) Se·ctions of Statutes calling for construction by Courts are. not petrified print, but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutiooal empathy for the weaker sections like women a•nd children must inform interpretation if it has to have sociaf relevance. (785 B-CJ (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 BJ ( 4) 'In the ""·hole' 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 BJ (5) Each cla,imant for maintenance, be he or she, vrife, child, father, or mother is independently entitled to maintenance upto a maximum of Rs 500/-. Indeed an oppasite conclusion may lead to absurdity. Therefore, courts cannot agree to the obvious iurisdictional inequity by reading a limitation of Rs. 500/- althowgh 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 a11 together. [786G, 787 A] , Prabhavati v. Sumatilal, AIR 1954 Born. 546 (FE); Md. Bashir v. Noor Jahan Begum, [1971] Cr!. L.J. 553 (Cal.)·; approved. ,, ···--;: ( - - - • ... RAMESHCHANDER V. VEENA (Krishna Iyer, J.) 7 83 (6) Mere divorce does not end the right to maintenance. Whether the A appeal ends i'.1 divor....e or no, the wife's claim for maintenance qua wife Wilder the definition contained in Explanation (b) to s. 125 of the (~ode continues, unless parties make adjustments and come to terms regarding the quantum or the right to maintenance. (788 C-D) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Cr.iminal) 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 . R . • ,.,J- V. M. /sser, S. Balakrishnan and M. K. D. Namboodri for th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.