IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.935 OF 2009 1. Smt. Shahana Praveen 2. Km. Nazima (Minor) ……… Petitioners Versus 1. Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, Camp Kashipur 2. Sharif Ahmed ……… Respondent Dated: October 30, 2009 Mr. K.S. Bhaskar, Advocate for the applicants Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By way of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the judgment and order dated 6.7.2009 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, Camp Kashipur, whereby the application for interim maintenance of the petitioner no.1 moved u/s 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as the CrPC) against the respondent no.2 (father- in-law) has been rejected. In the writ petition, it is further prayed to stay the proceeding of the case no.303/2007 pending in the court of Family Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on file. In brief, the facts of the case are that petitioner no.1-Smt. Shahana Praveen moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar against the respondent no.2 (father-in-law) for interim maintenance for herself and her daughter stating therein that she is having no source of income and 2 therefore she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. It was also stated by her that she is not having any money to contest the case and since there is time in disposal of the original suit therefore she moved the present application. She also stated that respondent no.2 is doing business from where he gets Rs.60-70,000/- per month. In this way, she sought an amount of Rs.40,000/- against the respondent no.2 for contesting the case, legal expenses and fees of advocates, etc in lumpsum. Respondent no.2 also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement stating therein that the application moved by the petitioner no.1 does not come within the ambit of Section 125 Cr.P.C., therefore, no interim maintenance can be granted. It was also stated that petitioner no.1 is a hale and hearty lady and also does work of sewing and knitting from where she easily gets Rs.5,000/- per month. On the other hand, he is aged about 72 years and previously he was running riksha but now he has also leave that work. It was specifically stated in the objection that there is no provision u/s 125 Cr.P.C. to get interim maintenance against father-in-law. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar vide his judgment and order dated 6.7.2009 rejected the application of the petitioner no.1 for interim maintenance. Against that judgment and order, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition before this Court. Before further discussion, it is pertinent to mention Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- 3 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.- (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain – (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. From a perusal of the aforesaid quoted Section, it is clear that there is no provision in law to grant any interim maintenance to a lady against her father-in-law. Therefore, the petitioner no.1 is not entitled to get any maintenance for herself and her daughter against respondent no.2, who is her father-in-law. In view of the foregoing discussion and legal proposition, I am of the considered view that the 4 judgment and order of the court below is correct and justified which requires no interference. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.10.2009 RG