SHYAM SUNDER MALIK Vs. GEETIKA MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 7.5.2005 passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi dismissing petitioner's revision petition against the order dated 2.11.2004 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi awarding maintenance @ Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 2,000/- respectively to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the date of the application.

(2.) Facts in brief are as follows: Respondents are the daughters of petitioner and are living with their mother. They filed an application under Section 125 of the Code, praying for maintenance, pleading that petitioner was married to Smt. Neeraj Malik, and out of the wedlock they were born on 15.1.1983 and 30.8.1987 respectively. Petitioner did not look after them and their mother and stopped paying any maintenance. The respondent No. 1 is 1st year student of Engineering College, Bhatinda, (Punjab), living in the hostel; her admission expenses of Rs. 55,000/- and other fee charges were arranged by her mother. She has to pay besides fee, monthly hostel charges and for the books, etc. The respondent No. 2 is studying in XI Class in a public school and her expenses for education are also being borne by her mother. The respondents have no means for their maintenance, education and their mother is unable to bear the expenses, which are increasing day-by-day. Petitioner was employed as a Manager in the Bank of Baroda, Delhi and was getting Rs. 20,000/- p.m. He took retirement and received a lumpsum amount of Rs. 15.0 lacs, towards arrears of salary, GPF, bonus, retirement benefits etc.; he is now working in a Banquet Hall, and has income also from the bank deposits, FDRs and other investments. The respondents claimed Rs. 10,000, - and Rs. 5,000/- respectively, towards maintenance. Petitioner filed a reply stating that respondents' mother was employed as a teacher in a public school and they are not entitled to claim maintenance. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 2.11.2004 awarded Rs. 3,500/- to the first respondent and Rs. 2,000/- to the second respondent with effect from the date of application till the disposal of the main petition. Learned Trial Court assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs. 10,000/- per month. Petitioner filed a revision petitioner before the Court of Session, which was dismissed on 7.5.2005. These orders are under challenge. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that a female unmarried child, who attained the age of majority is not entitled to claim maintenance from her father. The issue raised being purely legal, notice was issued only to the State.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that under Section 125 of the Code the child cannot be granted maintenance after he/she has attained the age of majority in the absence of any physical or mental infirmity, even if he or she is unable to maintain herself, in terms of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the observations made in K.Shivaram v. K. Mangalamba and Ors., II (1989) DMC 452=1990 Crl.L.J. 1880 (Andhra Pradesh) and Moideenkutty v. Pathumma and Ors., 1984 (2) Crimes 355. Learned APP for the State argued to the contrary submitting that Section 125 of the Code is a special provision to protect women and children who are unable to maintain themselves and the provision should be liberally construed.