Source: https://www.shoneekapoor.com/nitaben-dineshkumar-oza-vs-dineshkumar-ishwarlal-oza-anr/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:28:29+00:00

Document:
Nitaben Dineshkumar Oza Vs. Dineshkumar Ishwarlal Oza & Anr.
If a child whether legitimate or illegitimate has attained majority as per Majority Act, 1975 and not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury, thereby unable to maintain itself would not be entitled to receive maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2444 of 2014 dated 4.8.2015, so far as it is against the petitioner and further be pleased to direct the opponent to clear the huge arrears accrued thereon till date as per the chart with further direction to opponent to pay the regular maintenance to the petitioner.
Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad to disburse the deposited part of the arrears amount of Rs. 78,000 for the period of 11.8.2013 to 10.9.2014 to the petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice and further be pleased to direct the opponent to clear the rest of the arrears till date as per the chart placed on record with direction to pay the maintenance amount to the petitioner.
2.1 The petitioner, namely, Nitaben Dineshkumar Oza got married with the respondent No. 1, namely, Dr. Dineshkumar Ishwarlal Oza on 27th February, 1994. In the wedlock, a son was born on 5th October, 1995 named Sahil.
2.2 It appears that the matrimonial problems cropped up and it is the case of the petitioner that she was driven out of her matrimonial home along with her minor son on 6th June, 2006.
2.3 The husband filed a Hindu Marriage Petition No. 55 of 2006 in the Court of the Civil Judge (SD), Mehsana, for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On the other hand, the petitioner lodged a First Information Report at the Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which came to be registered vide C.R. No. 1591 of 2006.
2.4 It appears that, in the proceedings for divorce instituted by the husband, the wife appeared and prayed for Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month towards maintenance for herself and her minor son Sahil. On 30th August, 2007, the Court passed an order of interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only) from the date of application.
2.5 It appears that the petitioner preferred an application being the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1877 of 2006 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance of Rs. 12,500 (Rupees twelve thousand five hundred only) for herself and Rs. 7,500 (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) for her minor son. In the said proceedings, it was decided that the husband would pay Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only) per month, as awarded in the Hindu Marriage Petition proceedings while the minor son would be paid Rs. 3,000 (Rupees three thousand only) per month. On such understanding, the Family Court passed an order dated 23rd March, 2010 accordingly.
2.6 The wife, after sometime, preferred another application being the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 154 of 2012 before the Family Court under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and prayed for Rs. 16,000 (Rupees sixteen thousand only) per month towards her maintenance. The Court, by way of an interim maintenance, directed the husband to pay Rs. 9,000 (Rupees nine thousand only) per month to the wife.
2.7 It appears that the petitioner preferred an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the amount of maintenance on behalf of her son Sahil. She prayed that the amount of Rs. 3,000 (Rupees three thousand only) be enhanced to Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month.
2.8 By judgment and order dated 18th November, 2013, the application was partly allowed and the Court enhanced the amount from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month from the date of the application. It appears from the materials on record that the Court, while enhancing the amount of maintenance to Rs. 6,000, clarified that the father i.e. the respondent herein shall pay Rs. 6,000 towards maintenance till the son attains the age of majority.
“1. This is an application at the instance of husband calling in question the legality and validity of the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No. 2, Ahmedabad below application Exh.5 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 154 of 2012 filed by the wife and the minor son for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
It appears that vide order dated 30.8.2013, the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Mahesana passed an interim order of maintenance awarding Rs. 5,000 in favour of the wife and Rs. 3,000 in favour of the son. Thereafter, in November, 2013 an application was filed by the wife under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance. Such application was partly allowed and the interim order of maintenance of Rs. 5,000 was ordered to be enhanced to Rs. 9,000 and the interim order of maintenance of Rs. 3,000 was ordered to be enhanced to Rs. 6,000. Therefore, in all, the husband has been directed to pay Rs. 15,000 per month towards the interim maintenance of his wife and son.
3. Since the order impugned before me is an interim order of maintenance, I do not intend to go into the merits of the same as the ends of justice would be met, if the Family Court is directed to take up the main matter for final disposal.
4. Without going into the legality and validity of the order impugned before me, I direct the Family Court No. 2, Ahmedabad to give top priority to the Criminal Misc. Application No. 154 of 2012 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 1989 of 2011 and see to it that the same is disposed of finally within a period of three months from today. The husband shall continue to pay the amount of Rs. 15,000 towards the interim maintenance. The parties shall cooperate with the Court for effective and speedy disposal of the proceedings before the Family Court.
2.11 On 5th October, 2013, the son attained the age of 18 years. In such circumstances, the respondent-husband stopped making the payment of Rs. 6,000 towards the maintenance of the son.
2.12 The above led to filing of the application under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. being the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2444 of 2014.
“13. Thereby, I am of the opinion that this Court without entering into merits of this case, which has already been decided on merits, cannot reappreciate the evidence on merits and it is not possible as the matter is conclusively decided, and therefore, the prayer, at this stage, to continue the payment of interim maintenance amount to the child after the completion of age of majority i.e. 18 years.
14. The provisions of Explanation (a) of the Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is very much clear, and therefore, I am of the opinion that when this Court cannot travel beyond its own judgment without any direction or order from the higher authority, according to law.
15. Hence, I cannot go beyond my decision Exh.13 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1989 of 2011 which is clearly and very well decided order directing the opponent to pay Rs. 6,000 p.m. to the son Sahil, till attaining the age of majority.
16. Hence, the applicant may seek clarification from the Hon’ble High Court in this regard.
3. Ms. Joshi, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order is ex facie illegal and deserves to be quashed. She submitted that the controversy is with regard to recovery of the arrears. According to her, the husband is obliged to pay Rs. 78,000 (Rupees seventy-eight thousand only) for the period between 11th August, 2013 and 10th September, 2014.
“4. At the outset, I submit that the petition is filed challenging the order dated 4.8.2015 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2444/2014 which is with reference to the maintenance for son Sahil. It is submitted that it is undisputed position that the son Sahil was born on 5.10.1995 and he has become major on 5.10.2013 by attaining the age of 18 years. Thus, if Sahil wanted to file petition he himself has to file the petition and his mother is filing the petition saying that she is filing the petition ‘as natural guardian of minor Sahil’. It is submitted that first of all, the necessary corrections are required to be made in the cause title of the petition and if Sahil desires to file petition he has to file the petition under his signature.
5. With reference to the contentions and averments raised in para 1 of the petition, I say that they are not true as no fundamental right of the petitioner is violated in passing the order dated 4.8.2015 by the Principal Judge of the Family Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2444/2014.
5. The principle argument of Mr. Mehta is that the liability of his client as father to maintain his son came to an end the day son attained majority i.e. on 5th October, 2013. His submission is that his client is now not liable to maintain his son who has attained majority.
6. In rejoinder, Ms. Joshi submitted that the father is liable to maintain his son till the son is able to stand on his own legs and start earning. According to Ms. Joshi, the son is still studying and in such circumstances, the father owes the responsibility both legal and moral to take care of his son.
(1) Meharunnisa v. Syed Habeeb, III (2015) DMC 348 (KAR.)=2015 Cr.LJ 1836.
(2) Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata, IV (2004) SLT 482=III (2004) CCR 12 (SC)=2002 (5) SCC 422.
(3) Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2004 LS 1081 (P & H).
(4) Ankush v. Ranjana and Others., 2014 LS 2641 (Bom.).
(5) Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal and Others, 1969 (SLT SOFT) 437=AIR 1970 SC 446.
(7) Charu Khurana and Others v. Union of India and Others, IX (2014) SLT 724=(2015) 1 SCC 192.
8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the father is liable to maintain his major son and pay maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
9. Sections 125 to 128 falling in Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. make provisions for order for maintenance; procedure to be adopted for passing such order; alteration in allowance; and enforcement of such order. A proceeding drawn under Section 125 is of summary nature. It provides a speedy remedy for maintenance of wives, children and parents. By Section 127, the Legislature has made a special arrangement for alteration in the allowance of maintenance on proof of a change in the circumstances, any person, who is receiving maintenance under Section 125 or who has been ordered to pay maintenance under the said section, as the case may be, may file an application for alteration and if the concerned Court finds that an alteration is required, it shall make such alteration in the order passed under Section 125.
10. It is, thus, clear that the provisions of Section 127 are not independent as they provide for a consequential order upon proof of a change in the circumstances of any person receiving maintenance or directed to pay maintenance under Section 125. The change in the circumstances of the concerned person, therefore, has to be judged in the light of the provisions of Section 125 and a Court, considering an application for alteration under Section 127, cannot say go by to the provisions of Section 125, which are basic provisions for grant of maintenance to the person concerned.
11. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamla Devi & Anr., 1974 (SLT SOFT) 447=AIR 1975 SC 83, it was held with regard to Chapter XXXVI of the Code of 1898 that “Sections 488, 489 and 490 constitute one family. They have been grouped together in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of 1898 under the caption, “Of the maintenance of wives and children”. This Chapter, in the words of Sir James Fitzstephen, provides “a mode of preventing vagrancy, or at least of preventing its consequences”. These provisions are intended to fulfil a social purpose. Their object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his wife and children. By providing a simple, speedy but limited relief, they seek to ensure that the neglected wife and children are not left beggared and destitute on the scrapheap of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. Thus, Section 488 is not intended to provide for a full and final determination of the status and personal rights of the parties. The jurisdiction conferred by the section on the Magistrate is more in the nature of a preventive, rather than a remedial jurisdiction; it is certainly not punitive. As pointed out in Thompson’s case 6 NWP 205 “the scope of the Chapter XXXVI is limited and the Magistrate cannot, except as thereunder provided, usurp the jurisdiction in matrimonial disputes possessed by the Civil Courts. Sub-section (2) of Section 489 expressly makes orders passed under Chapter XXXVI of the Code subject to any final adjudication that may be made by a Civil Court between the parties regarding their status and civil rights”.
12. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, I (2008) DMC 22 (SC)=IX (2007) SLT 592=IV (2007) CCR 408 (SC)=(2008) 2 SCC 316, it was further held that Section 125, Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The Supreme Court further reiterated that the object of maintenance proceeding is not to punish a person for his pass neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The case of Bhagwan Dutt (supra), was also taken note of.
14. It is, therefore, clear that provisions of Section 127 are always subject to the provisions of Section 125 and if a person ceases to be entitled to receive maintenance under Section 125, he cannot seek an order of enhancement under Section 127.
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.
(b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.
Explanation— If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.
(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive and [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be], from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
16. A bare perusal of Section 125 would make it clear that a legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, and a 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, are entitled to get maintenance and of the purpose of this section, as per Explanation, ‘minor’ means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority.
17. Thus, if a child whether legitimate or illegitimate has attained majority as per the aforesaid Act of 1875 and is not suffering by any physical or mental abnormality or injury, thereby unable to maintain itself, would not be entitled to receive maintenance under Section 125.
19. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act, 1956’), a Hindu parent is bound not only to maintain unmarried daughter even after she attains the majority, but the marriage expenses of the daughter is also a legal obligation of parents and property given to her in marriage would amount to be a gift. Thus, under the Act of 1956, obligation of a Hindu father to maintain his unmarried daughter remains so far she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings. Similar remains the position under the Mohammedan Law. I fail to understand how this principle is made applicable in the case in hand. I am not concerned with the obligation of the father to maintain his unmarried major daughter. The case in hand is of obligation of the Hindu father to maintain his son who has attained majority.
22. Undoubtedly, the provision has been enacted to serve the social purpose. Therefore, the approach of the Court, while interpreting such a social legislation, should be benevolent and justice oriented. The principles of equity, justice and good conscience along with human consideration must dominate the scene. But the question does arise whether such consideration can sweep the plain and simple language provided by the Legislature in its wisdom knowing the previous enactment well?
25. I have also gone through the other decisions relied upon by Ms. Joshi, but they are of no avail to the petitioner in any manner.
26. In the result, this application fails and is hereby rejected. Notice is discharged.
“12. Mrs. Vijaya Hanmantgad, learned Counsel for the respondent son vehemently contended that if this respondent, who is still a student studying in 2nd year of degree course, is not maintained by his father, at least till he completes his course, he would be forced to discontinue his studies and, in that event, he would be deprived of his opportunity to get a suitable job for his livelihood and, therefore, this Court, exercising its discretionary powers, may direct the petitioner father to provide the necessary facilities towards his education.
13. It is true that in these days, the children, whether male or female, would not be in a position to earn anything towards their own maintenance till they complete their education, at least by obtaining a Bachelor Degree or a Certificate in respect of a Diploma Course or any job oriented course. But the fact is that they cannot obtain such degree or certificate, till they attain the age of 20 to 22 years i.e., minimum of 2 to 4 years after they attain the age of majority. It is also true that father of such children has a duty and obligation, both moral and social, to maintain them despite they attaining the age of majority, so as to enable them to complete their education up to a certain stage, so that they would become eligible and competent to earn their livelihood by getting a suitable job or by opting some suitable profession or avocation. If such children are neglected in this regard, they may become disappointed and also frustrated and consequently they may resort to short cut methods for getting what they need for their maintenance and education. Such a short cut method may be unlawful one or opposed to public policy and morality. Further, the chances of such neglected children becoming anti-social elements in consequence of such disappointment and frustration cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it would be a moral and social obligation of every father to bring up his children, male or female, by giving proper education, culture, etc., not only as his children, but also as the future citizens of the nation.
14. But the fact remains that in the absence of any statutory provision empowering the Courts to direct the father of such children to provide them with the least minimum facilities required for their maintenance and education, at least up to a certain stage, so as to enable themselves to acquire the ability to maintain themselves, no order whatsoever can be passed by the Courts issuing any kind of direction in this regard. Nothing can be done in favour of such children till suitable amendments are brought by the Legislature to the relevant provisions of law.
28. I am in complete agreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court referred to above. It is for the respondent-father to act accordingly.
Malti Chauhan Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Kapil Dev Vs. State Of H.P.

References: Application No. 2444
 Application No. 1877
 Application No. 154
 Application No. 154
 Application No. 154
 Application No. 1989
 Application No. 2444
 Application No. 1989
 Application No. 2444
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.