VIPIN TYAGI Vs. ROOPA TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the Complaint Case No. 200/4/2009 filed by Respondent No. 1, wife of the Petitioner, for maintenance under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure for herself as also for Respondent No. 2, a daughter aged around 1-1/2 years.

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned order, by which interim maintenance of 5,000/- per month is fixed as payable to Respondent No. 2, is liable to be set aside on the ground that the petition preferred by Respondent No. 1 under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure was only for seeking maintenance in respect of herself, and not in respect of Respondent No. 2, the minor child. He seeks to draw the attention of this Court to the prayer clause of the aforesaid petition to contend that it was only Respondent No. 1 who had claimed maintenance from the Petitioner.

(3.) However, a perusal of the petition preferred by the Respondents, enclosed as Annexure P-2, does not bear out the submission made by the counsel for the Petitioner. In fact, in Para 23 of the aforesaid petition, it has been specifically stated on behalf of both the Respondents that they are unable to maintain themselves and are totally dependent on the aged parents of Respondent No. 1. To do complete justice between the parties, the courts are required to examine the petition as a whole and not just the prayer clause. Such a technical approach if adopted by the courts would lead to grave miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the aforesaid argument is turned down as being devoid of merits.