TEJ KUMAR SAHU Vs. PADUM LOCHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties are heard. After an order under Section 125, Cr. P.C. was passed against the applicant awarding maintenance in favour of the non-applicant No. 1, the said order was put into execution by the guardian. It appears that during the recovery proceedings certain disputes arose and the Court directed return of certain amounts in favour of the present applicant which was paid in excess by him. Later on the non-applicant No. 2 in her capacity as guardian of non-applicant No. 1 made an application for recovery of the amount under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application was opposed by the applicant again raising the plea that the non-applicant No. 1 was not his child.. The Trial Court rejected the application mainly on the ground that the Executing Court could not go behind the original order. It allowed the application and directed the recovery of the amount. Before the Revisional Court the applicant raised an objection inter-alia pleading that as the applicant No. 1 had attained majority, the non-applicant No. 2 was not entitled to make an application for recovery on behalf of non-applicant No. 1. It was also submitted that no recovery proceedings could be initiated after one year from the date when the amount has become due. The Court below, however, interfered on the ground of age and directed that the applicant shall stand obliged to deposit the money for being paid to the non-applicant No. 1 but the non-applicant No. 1 shall be entitled to withdraw the money if she makes an application for withdrawal of the money. It, however, did not allow the mother to withdraw the money.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in accordance with Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the recovery of allowance of one year only could be made and as the application was for a period beyond one year the two Courts could not direct the applicant to deposit the money. The argument raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant is in oblivion of the provisions of the Limitation Act which provides special limitation in favour of the person suffering with the disability. It provides that if the person is a minor on the date of the cause of action then he can take action against the other side within, a period of three years on cessation of the disability or on attaining the majority. Ordinarily under the Limitation Act the non-applicant No. 1 could make an application for recovery within a period of three years but as Section 125, as a special law provides for recovery in a shorter period of one year only the period of three years provided under the Limitation Act shall be deemed to be one year for the purposes of Section 125, Cr. P.C. Undisputedly, when the application was filed more than one year from the date of the cessation of the disability had not passed. True, it is that the mother filed the application showing the non-applicant No. 1 as a minor but the action of the mother was for and on behalf of and further in the interest of the person for whom the recoveries were to be made. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that if the application was filed by the non-applicant instead of her mother the said application would have been barred by limitation. The Revisional Court, in the opinion of this Court was certainly justified in directing the applicant to deposit the amount and further requiring the non-applicant No. 1 to make an application in accordance with law for payment to her.

(3.) Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the High Court is entitled to exercise its inherent powers to do complete justice between the parties and to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In a case where the father of a legitimate child refused to pay the maintenance on the technical grounds then interference by the High Court would, in fact, be abuse of the process of law and would not permit the High Court to secure the ends of justice. Section 125, Cr.P.C. after all is a benevolent provision which has been made in favour of helpless, hapless and the people who are not protected. The benevolent provision would not be allowed to say that a person who is required to maintain the dependant would not maintain the dependant. I find no reason to interfere in the matter. The petition is dismissed.