IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.591 of 2008 KAPILDEO PODDAR Versus MEENA DEVI & ORS ----------- 7 19/9/2008 Heard Mr. Rashid Izhar, counsel for he petitioner. By the impugned order the court below, on an application filed by the wife, opposite party, has granted maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the following terms:- “In the result, the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by applicant Meena Devi, Rita Kumari and Sarita Kumari against opposite party Kapildeo Poddar is allowed. Opposite party Kapildeo Poddar is directed to make payment of Rs. 2,000/- ( Two thousand) per month till age of majority of applicant no.2 Rita Kumari, to all the three applicants. Meena Devi, Rita Kumari and Sarita Kumari from the date of filing of the case. And after date of majority of applicant Rita Devi, Kapildeo Poddar is directed to make payment of half of the salary to applicant no.1 Meena Devi and no.3. Sarita Kumari till their date of majority of applicant no. 3, Sarita Kumri and thereafter Rs. 2,000/- ( Two thousand) per month to applicant no.1 Meena Devi till her life time.” Counsel for the petitioner has 2 submitted that the impugned order granting a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month each by way of maintenance to the wife and two daughters cannot be sustained because such order is referable to the date on which the provisions contained in the code of Criminal Procedure had laid down maximum limit of Rs. 500/- per month and therefore when the proceeding came to be initiated in the year 2000 and the amendment removed outer limit of Rs. 500/- per month in section 125 of the Cr.P.C which was brought in the year 2001, the order passed by the court below was wholly without jurisdiction. In the opinion of this Court, such argument in fact seems to be an argument of desperation. The application definitely came to be filed in the year 2000, at a point of time when maximum limit of maintenance for the wife and children was Rs. 500/- per month, but then when the amendment was made in the year 2001 and removing such bar, intention of the legislature was only to secure adequate amount of sustenance which was found to be 3 difficult in view of the earlier imposition of limit of Rs. 500/-. Consequently, when such amendment came into force in the year 2001 all the pending proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could have been and in fact have been decided by the courts by holding such amendment to be applicable for all pending case. It is made clear that the concept of punishment where the amendments were brought as statutes, cannot be enforced in terms of section 125 of the Cr.P.C. which is only an extension of concept of Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 of the Constitution, in fact, guarantees right to life every Citizen which would in its fold mean right to a descent, peaceful and secured life. In that view of the matter, if the Legislature had removed the outer limit of Rs. 500/- in the year 2001, the argument made to the extent that it will only apply to a proceeding which came to be instituted after such amendment and not to the pending proceeding, will be an 4 argument to defeat the very intention of the Legislature of making such amendment. Next, Mr. Izhar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from the discussions of the evidence in the impugned order, it would become clear that the marriage was solemnized in the year 1972 and the children were born in the year 1975 and 1978 and therefore they all had become major and thus disentitled for claiming maintenance on the date of filing of the application, i.e, in the year 2000. This Court would again find this argument to be an argument based contrary to the pleadings on records. The applicant Meena Devi in her application filed in the court on 14.12.2000 as with regard to age of two daughters had specifically stated that first daughter Rita Kumari was aged 14 years and the second daughter Sarita Kumari was aged about 10 years. Such statement of the wife Meena Devi has no where been sought to be controverted in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. Reference in this connection may be made to paragraph-10 of the rejoinder which was 5 filed only on 21.4.2001 wherein all that was said is that that Reeta Kumari had attained the age of majority and Sarita Kumari, being not daughter of the petitioner, was not entitled for any maintenance. Not a word has been said about correctness or otherwise of the statement with regard to age of Reeta Kumari and Sarita Kumari specifically asserted by the applicant Meena Devi in her application as referred to above. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any merit even in the second submission. The third and last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order as with regard to operative portion is quite confusing, has also to be noted for its being rejected because the impugned order seems to clearly convey that the wife will continue to get the amount of maintenance till her life time and the minor children whose age was disclosed as 14 years and 10 years in the year 2000 will also get such benefit till they became major. If that be so, 6 there is hardly any scope for making submission with regard to any confusion in the impugned order. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in the aforementioned submissions. Accordingly, this civil revision application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with a direction to the court below to ensure that the amount of maintenance fixed by the impugned order is paid by the petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar